Hi,
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:38:33AM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> > If you'd care to read through the thread you'd notice I've demonstrated
> > time and again that those static trace points we're mostly interested
> > in a never-changing. Lest something fundamentally changes with the
> > kernel, there will always be a scheduling change; etc. This
> > "instrumentation is evil" mantra is only substantiated if you view
> > it from the point of view of someone who's only used it to debug code.
> > Yet, and I repeat this again, instrumentation for in-source debugging
> > is but a corner case of instrumentation in general.
> >
> I didn't get the "instrumentation is evil" mantra from this thread,
> rather "static tracepoints are good, so long as someone else is
> maintaining them". The issue comes down to who ends up maintaining the
> trace points,
The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty
much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel
will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good
tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so
that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few
people could understand and maintain.
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]
