Hi,
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 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.
Considering the context, which is not exactly full of support for static
tracer, I think my understanding was and still is quite correct.
Let's take <[email protected]>, where you suggest converting
as much possible tracepoints to this API, thus excluding a lot of
information from 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?
Well, I rather just wait for the real patch, where you can show your
support for all possible users.
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]
