[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <450DF28E.3050101@opersys.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:12:46 -0400
From: Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>
Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah. If you look at the API suggestions i made, they are such. There
> can be differences though to 'static tracepoints used by static
> tracers': for example there's no need to 'mark' a static variable,
> because dynamic tracers have access to it - while a static tracer would
> have to pass it into its trace-event function call.
That has been your own personal experience of such things. Fortunately
by now you've provided to casual readers ample proof that such
experience is but limited and therefore misleading. The fact of the
matter is that *mechanisms* do not "magically" know what detail is
necessary for a given event or how to interpret it: only *markup* does
that.
Karim
--
President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
-
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