[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060919081307.GA32108@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:13:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: "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>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > +choice
> > + prompt "MARK code marker behavior"
>
> > +config MARK_KPROBE
> > +config MARK_JPROBE
> > +config MARK_FPROBE
> > + Change markers for a function call.
> > +config MARK_PRINT
>
> as indicated before in great detail, NACK on this profileration of
> marker options, especially the function call one. I'd like to see _one_
> marker mechanism that distros could enable, preferably with zero (or at
> most one NOP) in-code overhead. (You can of course patch whatever
> extension ontop of it, in out-of-tree code, to gain further performance
> advantage by generating direct system-calls.)
^---function
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