On 08/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I suppose the down-side to putting them in TP_ARGS() is that you > cannot use arbitrary expressions for them anymore; like: > > TP_ARGS(foo); > > TP_perf_assign( > __perf_task(foo->ponies); > __perf_count(foo->horses); > ), > > Not that we actually did something like that, but I imagine it might've > been useful..
Yes. This is of course less generic. And more confusing, I agree. > A well, lets not worry too much about that and go with > this. We'll get creative again if we ever need something like that. > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Thanks ;) BTW. Can't we kill __perf_addr() and the corresponding argument in perf_trace_buf_submit/perf_tp_event ? Or do you think it can have a new user? Oleg. -- 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/
