Subject: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:25:46 +0100

* Mathieu Desnoyers <[email-masked]> wrote:

> * Ingo Molnar ([email-masked]) wrote:
> > 
> > * Jens Axboe <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > > the other direction (you merging ftrace bits) doesnt look too hot, 
> > > > you'd have to pick up:
> > > > 
> > > >    95 files changed, 5308 insertions(+), 1603 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Lets do that, it's just a single patch here from Arnaldo. I have 
> > > attached it to this email.
> > 
> > thanks, here's the conversion to tracepoints below. Stephen, you might 
> > want to pick up the blk tree straight away plus the fix below.
> 
> I guess the only difference between your implementation and mine is 
> that you define all the tracepoints in block/blktrace.c, while I 
> define them in the various files where they are used. I don't feel 
> very strongly opinioned about any of the two alternatives.

usage site build attribute must be the same as definition site 
attribute. So blktrace.c is not a good place - we will fail the build 
in the !CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE case. I'll apply your spread-out 
definition variant.

	Ingo