lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracing: Export key trace event symbols


Christoph Hellwig wrote on 04/21/15 01:10:
>
> Which (in-tree) module fails with this? I don't think anyone should
> actually register a symbol.
>

I see you (Christoph Hellwig) have asked this question in a similar context
(see https://patches.linaro.org/28821/).
This question does not seem to make sense because:
1) the external module is not registering a _symbol_ but more
precisely a tracepoint _function_ as the whole tracepoint system allows for
_multiple_ functions to be called for each tracepoint declared in the kernel.
2) It's not the point that an in-tree module would fail. Again, the tracepoint
system allows for _multiple_functions_ to be defined/registered for each tracepoint
and _in_the_earlier_kernels_(i.e. 3.10.x and many others),_external_modules_could_
_register_ one or more _additional_functions_ to be called.

IF you're specifically saying that external modules should not register additional
tracepoint functions, my question would simply be: why do you think this?

To give you an example of the usefulness of continuing to allow this (continuation
from earlier kernels): the kernel scheduling has a tracepoint defined; of course a
critical operation for any kernel. I use to be able to insert a module which would
collect my own statistics on when and what switching was going on on what CPU cores.
I can think of many other potential reasons that this would be useful for external
modules. To think that tracepoints would only be useful for in-tree development is,
perhaps, (not meaning to offend) short sighted.

--
Ron Rechenmacher
Engineer
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Batavia, IL 60510


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-21 14:41    [W:0.104 / U:1.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site