Re: [PATCH 0/2] tracing: Move trace_printk.h out of kernel.h
Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> Mon, 22 Jun 2026 09:40:45 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-kbuild,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-rdma,org.kernel.vger.linux-trace-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-usb,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 6/22/26 1:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:34:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> There's been complaints about trace_printk() being defined in kernel.h as it >> can increase the compilation time. As it is only used by some developers for >> debugging purposes, it should not be in kernel.h causing lots of wasted CPU >> cycles for those that do not ever care about it. >> >> Instead, add a CONFIG_TRACE_PRINTK_DEBUGGING option that developers that do >> use it can set and not have to always remember to add #include <linux/trace_printk.h> >> to the files they add trace_printk() while debugging. It also means that >> those that do not have that config set will not have to worry about wasted >> CPU cycles as it is only include in the CFLAGS when the option is set, and >> its completely ignored otherwise. > > Did you forget your C 101 class? If you use a function, you gotta > include the relevant header. Also item #1 in Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst. > You don't see userspace saying: 'Hey, you know what, perhaps we should > add stdio.h to every other header, just in case someone wants to > printf()' either. > > I really don't understand your argument. Yes, maybe someone will forget > and then either their editor (if they have a halfway modern setup with > LSP enabled) or their build will complain, but so what? This is all > trivial stuff, surely we have more pressing matters to concern outselves > with? -- ~Randy