Hi Mathieu, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:Oh, you right. since there is no tracepoint user who uses private_data, we can remove it. If you need it, I think you can introduce some macros like below. #define TPPROTO(args...) (void *private_data, args) #define __define_trace_register(name, proto) \ /*shared by DEFINE_TRACE/DEFINE_TRACE_NOARG*/ static inline int register_trace_##name(\ void (*probe)proto, \ void *private_data) \ { \ return tracepoint_probe_register(#name ":" #proto, \ (void *)probe, private_data); \ } \ static inline void unregister_trace_##name( \ void (*probe)proto, \ void *private_data) \ { \ tracepoint_probe_unregister(#name ":" #proto, \ (void *)probe, private_data); \ } #define DEFINE_TRACE_NOARG(name) \ static inline void _do_trace_##name(struct tracepoint *tp) \ ... static inline void trace_##name(void) \ ... __define_trace_register(name, (void *private_data)) But I think removing private_data is better... Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com --
| James Bruce | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Peter Zijlstra | [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Josip Rodin | bnx2_poll panicking kernel |
