On Tue, 6 May 2014 20:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> > I do plan on adding more documentation to this to stress that this > > should be done like this. But hey, we're kernel developers, we should > > be responsible enough to not require the hand holding. > > I like your optimism. ;-) I'm always the optimist :-) > > The first time I thought about using this was with David's code, which > > does this: > > > > if (static_key_false(&i2c_trace_msg)) { > > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < ret; i++) > > if (msgs[i].flags & I2C_M_RD) > > trace_i2c_reply(adap, &msgs[i], i); > > trace_i2c_result(adap, i, ret); > > } > > > > That would look rather silly in a tracepoint. > > Which goes with a mandatory silly question: how do you intend mapping > the single key to two different tracepoints ? Could always do: if (trace_i2c_result_enabled() || trace_i2c_reply_enabled()) { I wounder what the assembly of that would look like. Still, having "side-effects" in the tracepoint parameters just seems odd to me. - 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/