Re: [PATCH 2/2] Markers Implementation for Preempt RCU BoostTracing

[Nicholas Miell]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 11:33 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
> 
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:47:34PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > [...]
> > > FWIW, I'm not keen about the format strings either, but they don't 
> > > constitute a performance hit beyond an additional parameter.  It does 
> > > not need to actually get parsed at run time.
> > 
> > "only" an additional parameter. The whole _point_ behind these markers 
> > is for them to have minimal effect!
> 
> Agreed.  The only alternative I recall seeing proposed was my own
> cartesian-product macro suite that encodes parameter types into the
> marker function/macro name itself.  (Maybe some of that could be
> hidden with gcc typeof() magic.)  There appeared to be a consensus
> that this was more undesirable.  Do you agree?
> 
> 

C++ name mangling would be extremely useful here.


Actually, why isn't the DWARF information for the functions sufficient?

-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx>

--
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/