Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751352AbWIOMr2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:47:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751355AbWIOMr2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:47:28 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:61642 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751352AbWIOMr1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:47:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:38:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais , fche@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 Message-ID: <20060915123856.GA32076@elte.hu> References: <20060914171320.GB1105@elte.hu> <4509BAD4.8010206@mbligh.org> <20060914203430.GB9252@elte.hu> <4509C1D0.6080208@mbligh.org> <20060914213113.GA16989@elte.hu> <4509D6E6.5030409@mbligh.org> <20060914223607.GB25004@elte.hu> <4509DEC3.70806@mbligh.org> <20060914231956.GB29229@elte.hu> <4509FC15.6020407@mbligh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4509FC15.6020407@mbligh.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1707 Lines: 46 * Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >i.e. we should have macros to prepare local information, with macro > >arities of 2, 3, 4 and 5: > > > > _(name, data1); > > __(name, data1, data2); > > ___(name, data1, data2, data3); > > ____(name, data1, data2, data3, data4); > > Personally I think that's way more visually offensive that something > that looks like a function call, but still ;-) We do it as a caps > macro > > KTRACE(foo, bar) > > internally, which I suppose makes it not look like a function call. > But at the end of the day, it's all just a matter of visual taste, > what's actually in there is way more important. i disagree with the naming, for the reasons stated before: if we add any static info to the kernel, it's a "easier data extraction" thing (for the purposes of speeding up dynamic tracing), not a tracepoint. That way there's no dispute whether what i remove is a tracepoint (on which static tracers might rely in a hard way), or just a speedup for SystemTap. So a better name would be what SystemTap has implemented today: STAP_MARK_NN(kernel_context_switch, prev, next); or what makes this even more explicit: DEBUG_DATA(kernel_context_switch, prev, next); (but i'm flexible about the naming - as long as it doesnt say 'trace' and as long as there are no guarantees at all that those points remain, when a better method of accessing the same data for dynamic tracers is implemented.) Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/