[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609151339190.6761@scrub.home>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:46:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Iau, 2006-09-14 am 12:40 -0700, ysgrifennodd Tim Bird:
> > It's only zero maintenance overhead for you. Someone has to
> > maintain it. The party line for years has been that in-tree
> > maintenance is easier than out-of-tree maintenance.
>
> That misses the entire point. If you have dynamic tracepoints you don't
> have any static tracepoints to maintain because you don't need them.
This assumes dynamic tracepoints are generally available, which is wrong.
This assumes that dynamic tracepoints can't benefit from static source
annotations, which is also wrong.
He doesn't miss the point at all, dynamic tracepoints don't imply zero
maintenance overhead.
bye, Roman
-
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