Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> int __trace function(char arg1, char arg2)
> {
> }
>
> where kprobes can be used to attach a lightweight tracepoint that does a
> call, not a break (INT3) instruction. With static tracers we couldnt do
> this so we'd have to stick with the static tracepoints forever! It's
> always hard to remove features, so we have to make sure we add the
> feature that we know is the best long-term solution.
Where is the prove for that? Why can't the same rules apply to dynamic and
static trace points?
You're also mixing up function tracing with event tracing. Most of the LTT
trace points log rather high level events, which are rather unlikely to
disappear. It's more likely that the place where they are generated is
moved and then it's only advantageous if the marker is moved as well at
the same time. OTOH if the actual event really is not generated anymore,
there is also no need for the marker anymore.
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]
