[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080623110927.37C5.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:19:29 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Hideo AOKI <haoki@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 2/2] markers: example of irq regular kernel markers
> Peter, I thought, we were discussing what interface we could accept,
> not how many or where tracepoints we could accept. Or, am I misreading?
>
> I know that if someone pushes markers into kernel in his own sweet way,
> of course, the kernel code will be bloated endlessly. But I also know
> why we review patches and send Ack/Nack before merging them to the tree.
> (If you still worry about it, we might be able to make linux-markers
> git tree, and review all regular markers on it)
Indeed.
if necessary, I can maintain this tree.
(because, I hope marker is independent by LTTng and SystemTap.
So, I am no related any tracer in this discussion member.)
but, at first,
We should review and discuss to Mathieu's new tracepoint proposal.
I think that is good idea.
--
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