Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/pvops: target CREATE_TRACE_POINTS to particularsubsystems

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>   
> > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >     
> > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > > > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > > > Ah yes! It needs to be:
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_TRACE_POINTS
> > > > > #undef CONFIG_IRQ_TRACE_POINTS
> > > > > #include <trace/define_trace.h>
> > > > > #endif
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise we get into the recursion again.
> > > > >         
> > > > >           
> > > > We should probably also move the #define TRACE_SYS in there as well
> > > > (without
> > > > the #undef), as it should only have one definition at a time...
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > Actually, I'm kind of against that. Just because as it stands, the
> > > TRACE_SYSTEM macro is up at the top, and it is easy to see.
> > >   
> > >       
> > Yes, but it means that if you're in the middle of CREATE_FOO_TRACE_POINTS and
> > foo.h happens to include bar.h, suddenly TRACE_SUBSYSTEM becomes bar...
> >     
>
> How so?
>   

Hm, not exactly sure - now that I think of it - but it fixed things when 
I made the change.  Before I was getting kmem definitions where I was 
expecting pvops ones...

   J
--
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/