> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:41:51 +0900 (JST) > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Signed-of-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/fs-writeback.c | 3 +++ > > > include/linux/fs.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > > > include/trace/events/writeback.h | 28 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 0 > > > deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > index 3d06ccc..62e33cc 100644 > > > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > @@ -952,6 +952,9 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, > > > int flags) if ((inode->i_state & flags) == flags) > > > return; > > > > > > + if (flags & (I_DIRTY_SYNC | I_DIRTY_DATASYNC | > > > I_DIRTY_PAGES)) > > > + trace_writeback_inode_dirty(inode, flags); > > > + > > > > Why can't we move this branch into TP_fast_assign()? > > not really because then the tracepoint is already in process of being > emitted... no way to retract it anymore. I'm not tracing expert. but Steven said we can it in past. (cc him) http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg20045.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
