Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753459AbYKFU7I (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:59:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751890AbYKFU6N (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:58:13 -0500 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52053 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753661AbYKFU6M (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:58:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:57:49 -0500 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, alan@redhat.com, jbaron@redhat.com, Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: add an fsync tracer Message-ID: <20081106205749.GA20928@redhat.com> References: <1225976138.7803.4485.camel@twins> <20081106060624.58a0f967@infradead.org> <1225981141.7803.4577.camel@twins> <20081106063108.02b4813d@infradead.org> <1225983052.7803.4623.camel@twins> <20081106070157.065b2dcc@infradead.org> <20081106094558.50d94bcc@infradead.org> <1226003343.31966.43.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1226003343.31966.43.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1159 Lines: 32 Hi - On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 09:29:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > [...] > I prefer we keep using trace points but do what jason has been proposing > for a while, which is add a format and arg list to the trace point > definition. > > Something like > > DEFINE_TRACE_FMT(sched_switch, > TPPROTO(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, > struct task_struct *next), > TPARGS(rq, prev, next), > TPFMT("%d to %d\n", prev->pid, next->pid)); > > Which would be similar to attaching a trace_mark() to the trace point > and can in these cases save a lot of lines of code. Can you explain how this would save any lines of code at all compared to the trace_mark() example? Both cases still need a bit of ~identical additional code to couple the markers (specified whichever way) to a trace buffer. Your version has the tracepoint machinery too, which is strictly additional. Where's the savings? - FChE -- 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/