[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1158267906.5068.49.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:05:06 -0400
From: Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
fche@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
> the question is: what is more maintainance, hundreds of static
> tracepoints (with long parameter lists) all around the (core) kernel, or
> hundreds of detached dynamic rules that need an update every now and
> then? [but of which most would still be usable even if some of them
> "broke"] To me the answer is clear: having hundreds of tracepoints
> _within_ the source code is higher cost. But please prove me wrong :-)
Actually I rarely find that any of the 70 000 printk is such a huge
nuisance to code readability. They may even help understand what is
going on in a code area you are less familiar with.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists