linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609151425180.6761@scrub.home>
Date:	Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:39:42 +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 Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 13:46 +0200, ysgrifennodd Roman Zippel:
> > > 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.
> 
> Wrong in what sense, you don't have them implemented or your
> architecture is mindbogglingly braindead you can't implement them ?
> 
> > This assumes that dynamic tracepoints can't benefit from static source 
> > annotations, which is also wrong.
> 
> gcc -g produces extensive annotations which are then usably by many
> tools other than gdb.

Both points have very strong consequences regarding complexity. Why do you 
want to deny me the choice to use something simple, especially since both 
solutions are not mutually exclusive and can even complement each other? 
What's the point in forcing everyone to use a single solution?

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/