Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] IB CM tracepoints

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 06:30:11PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Aug 24, 2020, at 5:56 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 02:24:40PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 24, 2020, at 1:42 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> >>>> Oracle has an interest in a common observability infrastructure in
> >>>> the RDMA core and ULPs. Introduce static tracepoints that can also
> >>>> be used as hooks for eBPF scripts, replacing infrastructure that
> >>>> is based on printk. This takes the same approach as tracepoints
> >>>> added recently in the RDMA CM.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Change since v2:
> >>>> * Rebase on v5.9-rc1
> >>>> 
> >>>> Changes since RFC:
> >>>> * Correct spelling of example tracepoint in patch description
> >>>> * Newer tool chains don't care for tracepoints with the same name
> >>>> in different subsystems
> >>>> * Display ib_cm_events, not ib_events
> >>> 
> >>> Doesn't compile:
> >>> 
> >>> In file included from drivers/infiniband/core/cm_trace.h:414,
> >>>                from drivers/infiniband/core/cm_trace.c:15:
> >>> ./include/trace/define_trace.h:95:42: fatal error: ./cm_trace.h: No such file or directory
> >>>  95 | #include TRACE_INCLUDE(TRACE_INCLUDE_FILE)
> >>>     |                                          ^
> >>> compilation terminated.
> >> 
> >> I am not able to reproduce this failure.
> >> 
> >> gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200507 (Red Hat 10.1.1-1)
> > 
> > Yep, using gcc 10 too
> > 
> > Start from a clean tree?
> 
> Always.
> 
> 
> >> What if you edit drivers/infiniband/core/cm_trace.h and
> >> change the definition of TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH from "." to
> >> "../../drivers/infiniband/core" ?
> > 
> > It works
> > 
> > It is because ./ is relative to include/trace/define_trace.h ?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It appears that the many instances of "#define TRACE_INCLUDE_PATH ."
> already in the kernel are each accompanied by Makefile magic to make
> that work correctly. I neglected (again) to add that.
> 
> But now that I've read the instructions in include/trace/define_trace.h,
> I prefer using a full relative path instead of "."-with-Makefile.
> 
> Do I need to send a v4?

No, I fixed it

Jason