[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090116152103.GA28643@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:21:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: updates to tip
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > maybe we could drive this via the filter API? Something like:
> >
> > echo "*btrfs*:stacktrace" >> set_filter_functions
> >
> > Would automatically mean that those functions will all generate
> > stacktraces too. Note how safe this API is by default: the filter is used
> > for a narrow scope of functions anwyay. To get it for all kernel functions
> > one would have to do:
> >
> > echo "*:stacktrace" >> set_filter_functions
> >
> > Which one cannot do accidentally.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Now that I see only a 1/2 sec lag, do you still think this is necessary?
>
> Maybe I should go back and see why it was so bad before?
>
> But I do notice that not all functions produce a valid stack trace.
> Maybe it would be better to add that api :-?
yes - i think that API would be more intuitive, and that way people could
mix more interesting functions (with stack traces) with less important
functions (no stack traces).
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