[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4886FA97.40104@qumranet.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:32:07 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"Feng(Eric) Liu" <eric.e.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] KVM-trace port to tracepoints
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There are currently no trace_mark() sites in the kernel that I'm aware
> of (except for the scheduler :-/, and those should be converted to
> tracepoints ASAP).
>
> Andrew raised the whole point about trace_mark() generating an
> user-visible interface and thus it should be stable, and I agree with
> that.
>
> What that means is that trace_mark() can only be used for really stable
> points.
>
> This in turn means we might as well use trace points.
>
> Which allows for the conclusion that trace_mark() is not needed and
> could be removed from the kernel.
>
> However - it might be handy for ad-hoc debugging purposes that never see
> the light of day (linus' git tree in this case). So on those grounds one
> could argue against removing trace_mark
But trace_mark() is so wonderful. Can't we just declare the tracemarks
as a non-stable interface?
Perhaps add an unstable_trace_mark() to make it clear.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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