On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 3:02 PM Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:45 PM Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:33 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:57:40 +0100 > > > Marco Elver <elver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, you are right, and it's something I've wondered how to do better > > > > as well. Let's try to consult tracing maintainers on what the right > > > > approach is. > > > > > > I have to go and revisit the config options for CONFIG_FTRACE and > > > CONFIG_TRACING, as they were added when this all started (back in > > > 2008), and the naming was rather all misnomers back then. > > > > > > "ftrace" is really for just the function tracing, but CONFIG_FTRACE > > > really should just be for the function tracing infrastructure, and > > > perhaps not even include trace events :-/ But at the time it was > > > created, it was for all the "tracers" (this was added before trace > > > events). > > > > It would be great to see this cleaned up. I found this aspect of how > > tracing works rather confusing. > > > > So do you think it makes sense for the KASAN tests to "select TRACING" > > for now if the code depends on the trace event infrastructure? > > Any thoughts? It looks like someone else got tripped up by this: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D144057 https://reviews.llvm.org/D144057#4311029 Peter, please triple check. -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
