On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/17, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 22:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because > > > > of __perf_task() > > > > > > Perhaps we can do something like below? > > > > Did this actually compile for you? > > Why did you ask? > > Perhaps you are trying to say that this patch needs more work... > > Just because it can't be compiled? Pedant.
No, just because when I first looked at it, I didn't think it would, and didn't delete this when I took a deeper look. > > > > @@ -659,13 +665,12 @@ perf_trace_##call(void *__data, proto) > > > \ > > > int __data_size; \ > > > int rctx; \ > > > \ > > > - perf_fetch_caller_regs(&__regs); \ > > > - \ > > > __data_size = ftrace_get_offsets_##call(&__data_offsets, args); \ > > > > OK, so here the task gets assigned the val, and so does count. > > > > This may not be a bad approach, but instead of having TP_perf_arg() in > > events/sched.h, keep the TP_perf_task() and TP_perf_count(), and have > > whatever is put there assigned. > > Or this, yes. > > OK. Let me try to make something working. At least, something I believe > should work, I will mostly rely on your review anyway. Great, -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
