Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > An idea is to reproduce the kernel file hierarchy in a "printk" event
> > subsystem, but this implies to allow subsystems nesting.
> > But may be the whole idea is just fancy and nobody will care, [...]
> I think it's an excellent idea, and it could also give us the framework to integrate 
> the dynamic_printk points.
[]
> > For example I'm currently working with dozens of trace_printk() and I would be 
> > very happy to turn some of them off half of the time.
> I guess we could try such a patch. If you send a prototype i'd be interested in 
> testing it out.

Another concept you might consider would be to
selectively compile trace points per compilation
unit.  This might help embedded users that might
want to use trace only in a few areas without the
additional text overhead.

Perhaps something like:

(default on)

#ifdef ENABLE_TRACE_COMPILATION
# normal tracepoint macro defines
#else
# static inline tracepoint functions {} or null macro defines
#endif


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/