Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 2/3] add trace_performance facility to debug performance issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Karsten Blees wrote:

> Macros are mainly used to supply __FILE__ and __LINE__, so that lazy
> people don't need to think of a unique message for each use of
> trace_performance_*. Without __FILE__, __LINE__ and message, the
> output would be pretty useless (i.e. just the time without any
> additional info).
> 
> If there's platforms that don't support variadic macros, I'd suggest
> to drop the __FILE__ __LINE__ feature completely and make message
> mandatory (with the added benefit that manually provided messages
> don't change if the code is moved, i.e. trace logs would become
> somewhat comparable across versions).

I do think __FILE__ and __LINE__ can be useful, and it would not be the
end of the world to simply omit them on platforms that can't do the
variadic macros (there shouldn't be many these days, and I think they
are used to living with reduced functionality in some cases).

But if this were attached to trace_printf, we would always have a
message anyway, no?

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]