Re: [PATCH 00/11] [GIT PULL] more updates for the tag format

[Frédéric Weisbecker]

2009/6/10 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ingo,
>>
>> Please pull the latest tip/tracing/event-print-format tree, which can be found at:
>>
>>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-2.6-trace.git
>> tip/tracing/event-print-format
>>
>>
>> Li Zefan (1):
>>       tracing/events: convert block trace points to TRACE_EVENT(), fix
>>
>> Steven Rostedt (10):
>>       tracing: add nsec2sec print formats
>>       tracing: convert lockdep lock_acquired trace point to use nsec2usec tag
>>       tracing: add major and minor tags for print format
>>       tracing: use << to print < instead of \<
>>       tracing: convert the block trace points to use the new tag format
>>       tracing: add test for strings in event tag format
>>       tracing: add func and symfunc to tag format
>>       tracing: check full name for field
>>       tracing: update sample code with new tag format
>>       tracing: move '>' to out of macros and into print statement
>>
>> ----
>>  include/linux/blktrace_api.h               |    4 +-
>>  include/linux/ftrace_event.h               |    3 +-
>>  include/trace/events/block.h               |  101 +++------
>>  include/trace/events/irq.h                 |    8 +-
>>  include/trace/events/kmem.h                |   12 +-
>>  include/trace/events/lockdep.h             |    8 +-
>>  include/trace/ftrace.h                     |    2 +-
>>  kernel/trace/trace_output.c                |    2 +-
>>  kernel/trace/trace_output.h                |    4 +
>>  kernel/trace/trace_read_binary.c           |  304 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  samples/trace_events/trace-events-sample.c |   21 ++-
>>  samples/trace_events/trace-events-sample.h |   66 ++++++
>>  12 files changed, 399 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)
>
> Hm, that's way too much back and forth really - trivial typo fixes,
> build failure, etc. This is really a 'oh, the merge window is
> coming' last minute scrambling and we dont want to mess up the
> squeaky-clean tracing tree history be messed up with this.
>
> Frederic also expressed worries about the tag format. Could we have
> a wider buy-in for this format?



Well, indeed I had worries, but I discussed about it with Steven and
now I actually
think this new tag format is much more powerful than printf style.
It brings a cleaner, and much higher level way to control the data exports.

But it would be nice to read some opinions from end users (end
developers) of TRACE_EVENT().


>
> I've separated these bits into tip:tracing/ftrace, and kept
> tip:tracing/core on a pre-print-formats state (going back 8
> commits), so that upstream merging of the other bits does not get
> held up.
>
> Could we try a cleaner, bisectable, consiously built up version of
> these final tracing/core..tracing/ftrace please? I think we can -
> the rest of the tree is clean. Please do a exact-same-content rebase
> so that the merge back gets obvious and that the testing we've
> injected does not get invalidated?
>
>        Ingo
>
--
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/