Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > [...] I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. 
> > annotation) could be acceptable.
> 
> No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants 
> dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes).

what you say is totally and utterly nonsensical misrepresentation of 
what i have said. I always said: i support in-source annotations too (I 
even suggested APIs how to do them), as long as they are not a total 
_guaranteed_ set destined for static tracers, i.e. as long as they are 
there for the purpose of dynamic tracers. I dont _care_ about static 
annotations as long as they are there for dynamic tracers, because they 
can be moved into scripts if they cause problems. But static annotations 
for static tracers are much, much harder to remove. Please go on and 
read my "tracepoint maintainance models" email:

 Message-ID: <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu>

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/