On 1/5/2026 1:21 PM, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
>
>
> Le 05/01/2026 à 18:11, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 1/5/2026 11:39 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 02:20:55 +0200
>>> Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not think it is necessary to move it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about move, I'm talking about the C 101 thingy. Any custom
>>>> API
>>>> should be included before use, otherwise compiler won't see it. Which
>>>> header do
>>>> you want to include to have this API being provided? Note, it's really bad
>>>> situation right now with the header to be included implicitly via
>>>> non-obvious
>>>> or obscure path. The discussion moved as far as I see it towards the
>>>> finding a
>>>> good place for the trace_printk.h.
>>>
>>> It's not a normal API. It's for debugging the kernel. Thus it should be
>>> available everywhere without having to add a header. Hence, the best place
>>> to include trace_printk.h, is in kernel.h.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that my proposed config option is the best solution now. For
>>> those that do not care about debugging the kernel, you enable the
>>> "HIDE_TRACE_PRINTK" config so that your builds will be "quicker". But for
>>> everyone else, it will not slow down their workflow when they need to debug
>>> code.
>>
>> 100% agree. We do have people running custom configs for faster builds, so
>> this
>> hide thing could be enabled there assuming those don't care about debug.
>>
>> In other words, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".
>
> But if I understand correctly, it would save 2% build time. That means 12
> secondes on a 10 minutes build. Is it really worth it ?
>
99% of my kernel builds are usually 90 seconds. I throw a lot of cores at it and
with ccache. I care more about trace_printk not being available than saving 2%.
But YMMV. I am sure there are people who care a lot about build time, but for me
it has not (yet) been a problem.
- Joel
