* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar 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),
>
> Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not
> "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".'
I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent
such a simple sentence. Let me quote the full paragraph of what i said:
> 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?
this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for
static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for
_dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static
tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static
markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the
"tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i
explain it in more detail?
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]
