Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing: Add TRACE_EVENT_CONDITIONAL()
From: Steven Rostedt <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>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101203045402.GA29609@Krystal>
References: <20101203040358.955427199@goodmis.org>
	 <20101203040822.144348122@goodmis.org>  <20101203045402.GA29609@Krystal>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 09:09:04 -0500
Message-ID: <1291385344.3228.4.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1595
Lines: 51

On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 23:54 -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote:
> [...]
> > -#define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args)					\
> > +#define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args, cond)				\
> >  	do {								\
> >  		struct tracepoint_func *it_func_ptr;			\
> >  		void *it_func;						\
> >  		void *__data;						\
> >  									\
> > +		if (!(cond))						\
> 
> One small documentation-related detail: my guess is that you are leaving
> "cond" without likely/unlikely builtin expect purposefully so that we
> can write, in TP_CONDITION:
> 
>   TP_CONDITION(unlikely(someparam)),

I actually think this is an abuse of "unlikely".

> 
> when we expect the condition to be usually false (and likely() for the
> reverse). Maybe it could be worth documenting that expressions like the
> following are valid :
> 
>   TP_CONDITION((likely(param1) && unlikely(param2)) || likely(param3))
> 
> It's fair to assume that kernel developers know this already, but given
> we plan to re-use TRACE_EVENT() for the user-space tracer soon enough,
> documenting this kind of use-case now can save us the trouble in the
> future.

I would frown on someone using unlikely here. But a TRACE_EVENT()
belongs to the maintainer, not me.

> 
> Other than that,
> 
> Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>

Thanks!

-- 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/