>
>
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Masami Hiramatsu (
mhiramat@redhat.com) wrote:
> >> Hi Mathieu,
> >>
> >> Thank you for making this so soon!
> >>
> >
> > Hi Masami,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments, I will rework the patch accordingly.
> >
> > Also, one thing I thought about yesterday which I dislike is that if we
> > have two modules declaring the same tracepoint in different headers with
> > different prototypes, each declaration will be valid but the
> > registration will try to connect a probe expecting wrong parameters to
> > the other tracepoint.
> >
> > It would be the case if someone does :
> >
> > drivers/somedrivera/mydriver1-trace.h
> >
> > DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(void), TPARGS()));
> >
> >
> > drivers/somedriverb/mydriver2-trace.h
> >
> > DECLARE_TRACE(really_generic_name, TPPTOTO(struct somestruct *s), TPARGS(s)));
> >
> > Do you think it's worth it to append the prototype string to the
> > tracepoint name ? I think it should fix the problem.
>
> Hmm, I think we'd better send a fix patch to them in that case.
> (I hope we can find that kind of conflicts soon)
> I think we can make an external tool which detect those conflicts.
