Return-path: Received: from smtprelay0078.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.78]:33695 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753114AbbDGNFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2015 09:05:33 -0400 Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by smtpgrave01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D43A59770 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 08:55:50 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Johannes Berg Cc: LKML , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: Move message tracepoints to their own header Message-ID: <20150407085550.7dc6aaed@gandalf.local.home> (sfid-20150407_150856_186540_0FEAC185) In-Reply-To: <1428389938.1841.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20150406231357.2b8e452d@grimm.local.home> <1428389938.1841.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 08:58:58 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-06 at 23:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Every tracing file must have its own TRACE_SYSTEM defined. > > Oh, that requirement is new to me. I also have the same in iwlwifi, with > even more TRACE_SYSTEMs. Well, it's new now :-) I never expected people to use more than one TRACE_SYSTEM in a single file, so I never documented that it shouldn't be done. I'm more worried about people using the same TRACE_SYSTEM in different files, which will probably break now too. I should update the comments about that. Hmm, I must have missed the iwlwifi part, as that should have not built with an allmodconfig :-/ > > > The mac80211 tracepoint header broke this and add in the middle > > of the file had: > > > > #undef TRACE_SYSTEM > > #define TRACE_SYSTEM mac80211_msg > > > > Unfortunately, this broke new code in the ftrace infrastructure. > > Moving the mac80211_msg into its own trace file with its own > > TRACE_SYSTEM defined fixes the issue. > > > > > Cc: Johannes Berg > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt > > Looks fine to me. > > Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg Thanks! > > I could merge through my tree but I guess you'll want to put it through > a different one to be able to change the code that depends on this move. > Right, I'll need to pull this in my tree, as I have a set of patches dependent on this. -- Steve