On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:19:34 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/28/18 11:10 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:03:24 -0700 > > Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I can live with this overhead if Mathieu insists, > >> but I prefer to keep it in 'struct tracepoint'. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > I'm fine with keeping it as is. We could probably use it for future > > enhancements in perf and ftrace. > > > > Perhaps, we should just add a: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS > > > > Around the use cases of num_args. > > it sounds like a good idea, but implementation wise > it will be ifdef CONFIG_BPF_EVENTS around u32 num_args; > in struct tracepoint and similar double definition of > DEFINE_TRACE_FN. One that uses num_args to init > struct tracepoint and one that doesn't ? > Feels like serious uglification of already macros heavy code. > Also what it will address? 32bit bloat ;-) But I agree, it's not worth uglifying it. -- Steve > cache hot/cold argument clearly doesn't apply. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
