[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45101965.3050509@opersys.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:23:01 -0400
From: Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...gle.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.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>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and
> make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)?
If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based
markup? Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same
codebase. It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether
a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow
yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's
comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than
*everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out
of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)
Karim
-
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