On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 11:23:57 -0500 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The TRACE_MARKER() is basically an optimized version of TRACE_EVENT() > with no arguments. It can be enabled and disabled the same way as any > other event, and stays within the system it was created in. > > Is this worth doing? > I'm thinking no. And unless someone can give me a good reason that we should have such a thing, I will Nack my own patch! Johannes, What's up with trace_iwlwifi_dev_irq()? You are tracing it but not saving any information. There's obviously a reason for the iwl_pcie_isr() to be called (it's handling something). Does it do the exact same thing every time? No variables are needed then? What I'm trying to say is, if you go through the trouble of inserting a tracepoint into some location, might as well extract data from it. Otherwise you are wasting space in memory. If all you want to know is if the function was called or not, then simply use a kprobe or function trace that function (noinline to allow ftrace to trace it). Unless I get some feedback to why this is a good idea... Nacked-myself-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
