Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10][RFC] tracing: Remove per event trace registering
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@krystal.dyndns.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
       Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
       Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20100430200746.GA12872@Krystal>
References: <20100429000528.GB30353@Krystal>
	 <1272500422.9739.98.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100429133649.GC14617@Krystal>
	 <1272550009.9739.136.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100429145559.GB24819@Krystal>
	 <1272557188.9739.147.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100430170938.GB25605@Krystal>
	 <1272651414.9739.184.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100430190613.GA6926@Krystal>
	 <1272656885.9739.198.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20100430200746.GA12872@Krystal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc.
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:14:37 -0400
Message-ID: <1272658477.9739.201.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3094
Lines: 90

On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 16:07 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 15:06 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > 
> > > > If it is possible sure, but that's the point. Where do you add the
> > > > check? The typecast is in the C code that is constant for all trace
> > > > events.
> > > 
> > > You can add the call to the static inline type check directly within the
> > > generated probe function, right after the local variable declarations.
> > 
> > Well, one thing, the callback is not going to be the same as the
> > DECLARE_TRACE() because the prototype ends with "void *data", and the
> > function being called actually uses the type of that data.
> > 
> > We now will have:
> > 
> > 	DEFINE_TRACE(mytracepoint, int myarg, myarg);
> > 
> > 	void mycallback(int myarg, struct mystuct *mydata);
> > 
> > 	register_trace_mytracepoint_data(mycallback, mydata)
> > 
> > There's no place in DEFINE_TRACE to be able to test the type of data
> > that is being passed back. I could make the calling function be:
> > 
> > 	void mycallback(int myarg, void *data)
> > 	{
> > 		struct mystruct *mydata = data;
> > 	[...]
> > 
> > Because the data is defined uniquely by the caller that registers a
> > callback. Each function can register its own data type.
> 
> Yep. There would need to be a cast from void * to struct mystruct *
> at the beginning of the callback as you propose here. I prefer this cast
> to be explicit (as proposed here) rather than hidden within the entire
> function call (void *) cast.
> 

OK, so you prefer that, I don't, but I also don't care, so I could
easily change it.


> > Let me explain this again:
> > 
> > 	DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args);
> > 
> > Will call the function like:
> > 
> > 	callback(args, data);
> > 
> > The callback will be at best:
> > 
> > 	int callback(proto, void *data);
> > 
> > 
> > because the data being passed in is not defined yet. It is defined at
> > the point of the registering of the callback. You can have two callbacks
> > registered to the same tracepoint with two different types as the data
> > field.
> > 
> > So what is it that this check is testing?
> 
> It's making sure that TRACE_EVENT() creates callbacks with the following
> signature:
> 
>   void callback(proto, void *data)
> 
> rather than
> 
>   void callback(proto, struct somestruct *data)
> 
> and forces the cast to be done within the callback rather than casting
> the whole function pointer type to void *, assuming types to match. I
> prefer to leave the cast outside of the tracepoint infrastructure, so we
> do not obfuscate the fact that an explicit type cast is needed there.

Fine, but I hardly see it as obfuscation. But my question again, even if
we do change this. What is this test testing? To me, it is checking that
CPP works.

-- Steve


--
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/