[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060918050843.GA28459@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:08:43 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>,
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
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> The following example voids your example : there are ways to implement
> static markers that *could* have access to those variables.
> (implementation detail)
>
> int x = 5;
>
> #define MARK(a) printk(a, x)
but this is only hiding it syntactically, hence the same
parameter-access side-effect remains - while in the dynamic probe case
the variable is accessed within the probe - so the true effect on the
callsite is different. But, in terms of having access to the
information, you (and Karim) are right that the static tracer can access
it too.
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