Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > OTOH I would also like to know what's going in my m68k kernel without
> > having to implement some rather complex infrastructure, which I don't
> > need otherwise. There hasn't been a single argument so far, why we
> > can't have both.
>
> the argument is very simple: LTT creates strong coupling, it is almost a
> set of 350+ system-calls, moved into the heart of the kernel. Once moved
> in, it's very hard to remove it. "Why did you remove that trace
> information, you broke my LTT script!"
You are changing the topic. Nobody said the current LTT tracepoints have
to be merged as is. You generalize from a work in progress to static trace
points in general.
> While with SystemTap the coupling is alot smaller.
What guarantees we don't have similiar problems with dynamic tracepoints?
As soon as any tracing is merged, users will have some kind of expectation
and thus you can expect "Why did you change this source? It broke my
SystemTap script!" here as well.
bye, Roman
-
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]
