On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:10:19 -0500 Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 16:01 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 10:29:00 -0500 > > Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events_trigger.c > > > @@ -696,6 +696,74 @@ static struct event_command trigger_traceoff_cmd = { > > > .get_trigger_ops = onoff_get_trigger_ops, > > > }; > > > > > > +static void > > > +snapshot_trigger(struct event_trigger_data *data) > > > +{ > > > + tracing_snapshot(); > > > +} > > > > If CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT is not defined, then we should not bother > > implementing the snapshot trigger. This should be encapsulated around > > ifdefs. > > OK, I guess I was just trying to avoid the ifdef since > tracing_snapshot() is already ifdef'ed out (but with a WARN_ONCE()) if > CONFIG_TRACER_SNAPSHOT isn't defined. > > I agree though, it would be better to just ignore all the snapshot > trigger code if that's the case. Same for the stacktrace trigger, > though as much as I hate to put big ifdefs in the main code... > #ifdef's are OK when they surround entire functions and structures. I don't think ifdef'ing out these will cause #ifdef's within functions. That's when things start to look ugly. -- 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/
