From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: compudj@krystal.dyndns.org (Mathieu Desnoyers)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:14:53 -0500
Subject: [ltt-dev] too few arguments to function 'ltt_vtrace'
In-Reply-To: <20090120024612.GD6990@Krystal>
References: <4974C933.8040408@PolTec.COM> <20090120024612.GD6990@Krystal>
Message-ID: <20090120031453.GA12697@Krystal>

* Mathieu Desnoyers (compudj at krystal.dyndns.org) wrote:
> * Dennis W. Tokarski (dwt at PolTec.COM) wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi Matthieu,
> >
> > I've just tried to build a kernel based on Fedora's
> > kernel-2.6.27.9-150.fc10.src.rpm. Your patch set from
> > patch-2.6.27.9-lttng-0.70.tar.bz2 applied with minimal
> > conflicts which were easily resolved.
> >
> > However the error message in the subject above occurs
> > during build.
> >
> > In ltt_serialize.c, ltt_vtrace() is defined as requiring
> > five arguments, while in ltt-ftrace.c ltt_tap_marker()
> > calls it with four--you aren't providing the required
> > pointer to a struct marker as the first arg. It's not
> > at all clear from the surrounding code what ltt_tap_marker()
> > *should* be passing, but ltt_vtrace() certainly wants to
> > use the arg.
> >
> > Same deal with is_marker_enabled() in kernel/marker.c,
> > you call it from markers_show() in fs/proc/base.c without
> > the first arg.
> >
> > A quick look at your web repository shows the second
> > bug fixed, but the first is still present in the
> > head revision.
> >
> > So how do you get a kernel to build at all, much less
> > run and actually take a trace?  What actual revisions
> > are you using for your work?
> >
> > I'd really like to give lttng a try, but there is
> > this little show-stopper.
> >
> 
> As a quick solution :
> Try disabling ftrace :)
> 
> Or remove the line
> 
> obj-$(CONFIG_LTT_FTRACE)                += ltt-ftrace.o
> 
> From ltt/Makefile
> 
> The ftrace function tracing bits are bogus in 2.6.27 anyway. Therefore
> you won't miss much. I'll fix it in 2.6.28 though, thanks for the
> report!
> 

This should now be fixed in LTTng 0.85.

Thanks,

Mathieu

> Mathieu
> 
> > Thanks for your help!
> > - --Dennis
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFJdMkrDJucIzCImrURAg/SAJ98BwoJPl1gfOWVZJI8b90o6zS5UQCdGLz/
> > 9JN1AdEXEQkNn89HBpLykeY=
> > =c3cJ
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ltt-dev mailing list
> > ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> >
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68