On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 04:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> > That's my argument. > > So basically, all we'd have to do in LTTng is to add a hash table tracking the > tracepoint probes which are registered, but for which there are no > tracepoint call sites. Whenever registration of a probe would fail due to > -ENODEV (assuming we unregister the probe within tracepoint.c when we return > -ENODEV, as you initially proposed), we would put this probe in the hash > table. > Upon module coming, we would iterate on the module's tracepoints and check > if any of those match the content of the hash table, and then register the > probe. > > I guess I'd prefer that to the weird successful failure return value in > tracepoint.c. > OK, then I'll add back in the removal of the tracepoint on this error. Then your LTTng module can handle the tracepoints that don't exist yet. -- Steve -- 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/
