[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101117141031.GH5464@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:10:33 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:53:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 14:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, trace_printk() is a pure debug interface, solely meant for the edit
> > > + reboot cycle.
> >
> > So why prevent from making it even more handy?
> >
> >
> > > If you want anything more than that we've got tracepoints. The rule up
> > > until now has been to never merge a trace_printk() user.
> >
> > Sure, that doesn't change the core idea of trace_prink(): none of them must
> > be merged. That new event interface would just make private uses of trace_printk()
> > more convenient.
>
> I don't get it, if you don't want it, why put it there in the first
> place?
>
> I've never found myself thinking, oh damn, I didn't want to see that
> one!, only damn, I should have added more :-)
Hehe :)
Yeah I have a strange workflow. I'm working on that CPU isolation thing
and I have dozens of trace_printk all over the place for tons of
things. And everytime I remove one to unwind some output or to focus
on another one, I often have to restore it later because I need it
again. Usually I even just comment it out instead of removing it.
If I could make this dynamically on a per line filtering, or sometimes on
a per file granularity (as both are equally often the case for me), I would
probably win some time.
I just don't know how many developers have a similar workflow than mine.
--
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