Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah. If you look at the API suggestions i made, they are such. There 
> can be differences though to 'static tracepoints used by static 
> tracers': for example there's no need to 'mark' a static variable, 
> because dynamic tracers have access to it - while a static tracer would 
> have to pass it into its trace-event function call.

That has been your own personal experience of such things. Fortunately
by now you've provided to casual readers ample proof that such
experience is but limited and therefore misleading. The fact of the
matter is that *mechanisms* do not "magically" know what detail is
necessary for a given event or how to interpret it: only *markup* does
that.

Karim
-- 
President  / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
www.opersys.com  /  1.866.677.4546
-
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]
  Powered by Linux