[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060917153156.GA26209@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:31:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karim@...rsys.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.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
* Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@...hat.com> wrote:
> As for Karim's proposed comment-based markers, I don't have a strong
> opinion, not being one whose kernel-side code would be marked up one
> way or the other. [...]
What makes the difference isnt just the format of markup (although i
fully agree that the least visually intrusive markup format should be
used for static markers, and the range of possibilities includes
comment-based markers too), but what makes the differen is:
the /guarantee/ of a full (comprehensive) set to /static tracers/
The moment we allow a static tracer into the upstream kernel, we make
that guarantee, implicitly and explicitly. (I've expanded on this line
of argument in the previous few mails, extensively.)
Ingo
-
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