linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tracing/markers: make markers select tracepoints

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:24:25 -0500
From:	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zippel@...ux-m68k.org,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/markers: make markers select tracepoints

Hi -

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:14:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I would like to never merge an ftrace_printk() user... just as I'd like
> > > to get rid of every marker.
> > 
> > But why?  They solve a problem well enough that Ingo had in effect
> > reinvented them on Friday.
> 
> Because after a printk() debug spree, I don't commit them, I toss them
> out and keep the fix.

Markers solve a problem closer to tracepoints than to debugging
printk's.

In this context, the main difference between tracepoints is that
markers need almost no hand-written glue code of the sort that make up
ftrace engines that just trace simple values.  Simpler & smaller code
for the same output seems like a win.

- FChE
--
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/