[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <450AAE39.4040205@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:44:25 +0200
From: Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.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
Roman Zippel wrote:
> The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty
> much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel
> will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good
> tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so
> that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few
> people could understand and maintain.
How do you propose to handle the case where two tracepoint clients wants
slightly different data from the same function? I saw this with LTT
users where someone wanted things in different places in schedule().
It *is* a nightmare to maintain.
You still haven't explained your argument about kprobes not being
generally available - where?
Cheers,
Jes
-
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