[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081118210111.GB11490@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:01:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun
field
* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 2008/11/18 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>:
> > 2008/11/18 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>:
> >> How about a compromise, start off the patch series getting it working with
> >> task struct static array, and then finish the series with the dynamic
> >> array.
> >>
> >> This is my development model, because it lets me know where the bugs are
> >> better. If we find some strange bug, this can help pin point via a bisect
> >> if the bug is with the general code, or with the use of a dynamic array.
> >>
> >> Just my preference ;-)
> >
> >
> > Ooh. I first agreed with Ingo's arguments about the fact that distros
> > can enable it whithout worrying.
> > But as I read your message, I guess that would be better to start with
> > static arrays to better find the bugs,
> > state by state...
> >
> > Ingo, what do you think?
> >
>
> And then a last state with dynamic arrays...
it's your call really, either way is fine as long as the end result
works! :-)
Generally it's indeed much easier to do as small steps as possible,
and to validate every step in practice.
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