* Tim Bird <[email protected]> wrote:
> > that's not true, and this is the important thing that i believe you
> > are missing. A dynamic tracepoint is _detached_ from the normal
> > source code and thus is zero maintainance overhead. You dont have to
> > maintain it during normal development - only if you need it. You
> > dont see the dynamic tracepoints in the source code.
>
> It's only zero maintenance overhead for you. Someone has to maintain
> it. The party line for years has been that in-tree maintenance is
> easier than out-of-tree maintenance.
There's a third option, and that's the one i'm advocating: adding the
tracepoint rules to the kernel, but in a _detached_ form from the actual
source code.
yes, someone has to maintain it, but that will be a detached effort, on
a low-frequency as-needed basis. It doesnt slow down or hinder
high-frequency fast prototyping work, it does not impact the source code
visually, and it does not make reading the code harder. Furthermore,
while a single broken LTT tracepoint prevents the kernel from building
at all, a single broken dynamic rule just wont be inserted into the
kernel. All the other rules are still very much intact.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
