[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090629111901.GB6265@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:19:02 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/fastboot: document the need of initcall_debug
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> To use boot tracer, one should pass initcall_debug as well as
> > >> ftrace=initcall to the command line.
> > >
> > > I think both should be auto-enabled if BOOT_TRACER is enabled, for
> > > ease of use - agreed?
> >
> > If both are auto-enabled, we'll always do boot tracing. But we
> > want BOOT_TRACER to be enabled and only enable boot tracing when
> > it's needed.
> >
> > But maybe we can make ftrace=initcall implies initcall_debug=1?
>
> That's reasonable indeed.
>
> Ingo
Yeah.
Although I wonder if this tracer is still useful.
It was first written to debug fastboot, to get more
than the initcall_debug output, ie: the scheduling
events but now I guess the latter is not useful
anymore. And using initcall_debug already does the
job of printing the initcall events.
What do you think?
--
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