On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:46:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 16:33 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > > > > +#ifdef MODULE > > > > +#define __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, > > > > data_args) \ > > > > + static inline void trace_##name##_rcuidle(proto) > > > > \ > > > > + { > > > > \ > > > > + if (static_key_false(&__tracepoint_##name.key)) > > > > \ > > > > + __DO_TRACE(&__tracepoint_##name, > > > > \ > > > > + TP_PROTO(data_proto), > > > > \ > > > > + TP_ARGS(data_args), > > > > \ > > > > + TP_CONDITION(cond), > > > > \ > > > > + rcu_idle_exit(), > > > > \ > > > > + rcu_idle_enter()); > > > > \ > > > > + } > > > > +#else > > > > +#define __DECLARE_TRACE_RCU(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, > > > > data_args) > > > > +#endif > > > > + > > > > > > Egad! More macros on top of macros! Yeah I know I'm the most guilty of > > > this, but it just seems to add one more indirection that I would like to > > > avoid. > > > > This doesn't seem to add a significant amount of complexity; it forwards > > exactly the same parameters to the helper macro, and just moves the one > > function definition there and makes it conditional. This still seems > > more preferable than exporting functions just so they won't get called. > > The change itself is not complex. But what is already there is complex > enough. I'm talking more about adding to: > > $ grep '#define' include/linux/tracepoint.h > #define _LINUX_TRACEPOINT_H > #define PARAMS(args...) args > #define TP_PROTO(args...) args > #define TP_ARGS(args...) args > #define TP_CONDITION(args...) args > #define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args, cond, prercu, postrcu) \ > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \ > #define DEFINE_TRACE_FN(name, reg, unreg) \ > #define DEFINE_TRACE(name) \ > #define EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(name) \ > #define EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL(name) \ > #define __DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args, cond, data_proto, data_args) \ > #define DEFINE_TRACE_FN(name, reg, unreg) > #define DEFINE_TRACE(name) > #define EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(name) > #define EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL(name) > #define DECLARE_TRACE_NOARGS(name) \ > #define DECLARE_TRACE(name, proto, args) \ > #define DECLARE_TRACE_CONDITION(name, proto, args, cond) \ > #define TRACE_EVENT_FLAGS(event, flag) > #define DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS(name, proto, args, tstruct, assign, print) > #define DEFINE_EVENT(template, name, proto, args) \ > #define DEFINE_EVENT_PRINT(template, name, proto, args, print) \ > #define DEFINE_EVENT_CONDITION(template, name, proto, \ > #define TRACE_EVENT(name, proto, args, struct, assign, print) \ > #define TRACE_EVENT_FN(name, proto, args, struct, \ > #define TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(name, proto, args, cond, \ > #define TRACE_EVENT_FLAGS(event, flag)
Yeah, I've had the adventure of hand-tracing through most of those in the past myself. :) At least they have a fairly clear hierarchy, without particularly complex conditionals. Ah, for a language with decent code generation facilities. :) > > I could live with that; it seems preferable to unnecessary exports, > > though it still seems much uglier to me than the conditional definition > > of trace_*_rcuidle. :) > > We could add either. Probably keep the ugliness of tracepoints inside > the tracepoint code than to start spreading it around to rcu. RCU has > its own ugliness features ;-) > > Hence, I would be OK if you send me a patch that does what you proposed > and removes the EXPORT from RCU. To clarify: does what I proposed as in the macro change to avoid defining trace_*_rcuidle in modules, or makes the change to define panicy versions of the two functions trace_*_rcuidle needs? - Josh Triplett -- 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/