[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090825102215.GC26801@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:22:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, my bad, I was thikning tracepoint_probe_register() was the
> > > thing that registered the tracepoint itself, not the callback.
> > >
> > > Ok, then what's the problem?, don't do modules that consume their
> > > own tracepoints, seems simple enough.
> >
> > is this a reasonable restriction? I dont see any reason why the
> > act of defining and providing a tracepoint should be exclusive
> > of the ability to make use of it.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me, you don't need your own tracepoints
> because you generate the events yourself, you already have them.
For a reasonable large subsystem/driver i can very well imagine this
to happen: why should the subsystem add _another_ layer of callbacks
if it can reuse the generic tracepoint code and register itself to
those?
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