linux-kernel - Re: tracepoint maintainance models

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20060918025722.GA11894@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:57:22 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
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

* Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com> wrote:

> >        MARK(event, a);
> ...
> > 	MARK(event, a, x);
> 
> You assume these are mutually exclusive. [...]

Plese dont put words into my mouth. No, i dont assume they are mutually 
exclusive, did i ever claim that? But i very much still claim what my 
point was, and which point you disputed (at the same time also insulting 
me): that even if hell freezes over, a static tracer wont be able to 
extract 'x' from the MARK(event, a) markup. You accused me unfairly, you 
insulted me and i defended my point. In case you forgot, here again is 
the incident, in its entirety, where i make this point and you falsely 
dispute it:

> > 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.

	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/