Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] tracing: Add TRACE_EVENT_CONDITIONAL()

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
[...]
> -#define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args)					\
> +#define __DO_TRACE(tp, proto, args, cond)				\
>  	do {								\
>  		struct tracepoint_func *it_func_ptr;			\
>  		void *it_func;						\
>  		void *__data;						\
>  									\
> +		if (!(cond))						\

One small documentation-related detail: my guess is that you are leaving
"cond" without likely/unlikely builtin expect purposefully so that we
can write, in TP_CONDITION:

  TP_CONDITION(unlikely(someparam)),

when we expect the condition to be usually false (and likely() for the
reverse). Maybe it could be worth documenting that expressions like the
following are valid :

  TP_CONDITION((likely(param1) && unlikely(param2)) || likely(param3))

It's fair to assume that kernel developers know this already, but given
we plan to re-use TRACE_EVENT() for the user-space tracer soon enough,
documenting this kind of use-case now can save us the trouble in the
future.

Other than that,

Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/