* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > It's possible I missed something, but pretty much anything you
> > > outlined wouldn't make the live of static tracepoints any easier.
> >
> > sorry, but if you re-read the above line of argument, your sentence
> > appears non-sequitor. I said "the markers needed for dynamic tracing are
> > different from the LTT static tracepoints". You asked why they are so
> > different, and i replied that i already outlined what the right API
> > would be in my opinion to do markups, but that API is different from
> > what LTT is offering now. To which you are now replying: "pretty much
> > anything you outlined wouldn't make the life of static tracepoints any
> > easier." Huh?
>
> Yeah, huh?
>
> I have no idea, what you're trying to tell me. As you demonstrated
> above your "right API" is barely usable for static tracers.
you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point we
were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm happy
to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely usable"
for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet that i
disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers?
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]
