Re: [PATCH 05/05] Linux Kernel Markers, non optimised architectures
Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.systemtap,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel.tracing |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> +#define MARK(name, format, args...) \
> + do { \
> + static marker_probe_func *__mark_call_##name = \
> + __mark_empty_function; \
> + volatile static char __marker_enable_##name = 0; \
> + static const struct __mark_marker_c __mark_c_##name \
> + __attribute__((section(".markers.c"))) = \
> + { #name, &__mark_call_##name, format } ; \
> + static const struct __mark_marker __mark_##name \
> + __attribute__((section(".markers"))) = \
> + { &__mark_c_##name, &__marker_enable_##name } ; \
> + asm volatile ( "" : : "i" (&__mark_##name)); \
> + __mark_check_format(format, ## args); \
> + if (unlikely(__marker_enable_##name)) { \
> + preempt_disable(); \
> + (*__mark_call_##name)(format, ## args); \
> + preempt_enable_no_resched(); \
Why not just preempt_enable() here?
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com