[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120117122741.GA19219@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:27:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3.2 7/9] tracing: uprobes trace_event interface
a couple of other 'perf probe' suggestions:
i think the 'perf probe' UI should be streamlined.
Right now we have kprobes assumptions like this syntax:
perf probe <kernel_symbol>
will add a probe.
That is nonsensical once we merge uprobes, as i'd expect much
more developers to be interested in user-space symbols than
kernel-space symbols.
So we could change this syntax and add the more intuitive:
perf probe add ...
perf probe del ...
perf probe list
Variants. Also, the -x syntax isnt particularly intuitive either
- it should be a 'perf probe add ...' variant.
If someone uses the old syntax it will produce a meaningful
error message.
Thanks,
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