On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 09:03 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 10:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > +void perf_trace_event_submit(void *raw_data, struct ftrace_event_call
> > > *event_call,
> > > + struct perf_trace_event *pe)
> > > +{
> > > + struct hlist_head *head;
> > > +
> > > + head = this_cpu_ptr(event_call->perf_events);
> > > + perf_trace_buf_submit(raw_data, pe->entry_size, pe->rctx,
> > > pe->addr,
> > > + pe->count, &pe->regs, head);
> > > +}
> >
> > Can you make perf_trace_buf_submit() go away? Its reduced to a simple
> > fwd function and layering another wrapper on top seems like pushing it.
>
> You mean just have perf_trace_event_submit() call perf_tp_event()
> directly?
>
> I have no problem with that. Although I may make that into a separate
> patch to keep this patch as a 'move' and the other patch as the change.
>
> Looking at the history of perf_trace_buf_submit(), it use to be more
> than one function call. But when you inlined
> perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(), it became just a one2one mapping.
Right.
> I'm assuming that we want to convert all calls to
> perf_trace_buf_submit()s into perf_tp_event()?
Yeah.. I think you're referring to the {u,k}probes open-coded nonsense?
Should we make those use these new helpers you created as well?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
