This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [RFC PATCH] Kernel Tracepoints
- From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at polymtl dot ca>
- Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com>, Takashi Nishiie <t-nishiie at np dot css dot fujitsu dot com>, "'Alexey Dobriyan'" <adobriyan at gmail dot com>, "'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz at infradead dot org>, "'Steven Rostedt'" <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, "'Frank Ch. Eigler'" <fche at redhat dot com>, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo at elte dot hu>, "'LKML'" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "'systemtap-ml'" <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, "'Hideo AOKI'" <haoki at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:45:46 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Kernel Tracepoints
- References: <007601c8d5ca$18fa0e10$4aee2a30$@css.fujitsu.com> <48611B03.1000003@redhat.com> <20080625011951.D83E.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <48612879.5090809@redhat.com> <20080625235214.GA14249@Krystal> <486403F0.4020801@redhat.com> <20080627131442.GA13751@Krystal>
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
>> Hi Mathieu,
>>
>> Thank you for making this so soon!
>>
>
> Hi Masami,
>
> Thanks for the comments, I will rework the patch accordingly.
>
> Also, one thing I thought about yesterday which I dislike is that if we
> have two modules declaring the same tracepoint in different headers with
> different prototypes, each declaration will be valid but the
> registration will try to connect a probe expecting wrong parameters to
> the other tracepoint.
>
> It would be the case if someone does :
>
> drivers/somedrivera/mydriver1-trace.h
>
> DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(void), TPARGS()));
>
>
> drivers/somedriverb/mydriver2-trace.h
>
> DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(struct somestruct *s), TPARGS(s)));
>
> Do you think it's worth it to append the prototype string to the
> tracepoint name ? I think it should fix the problem.
Hmm, I think we'd better send a fix patch to them in that case.
(I hope we can find that kind of conflicts soon)
I think we can make an external tool which detect those conflicts.
Anyway, signature based checking idea is good to me. I think ":" is
better delimiter.
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com