* Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is, actually, no reason to believe that end-users of dynamic
> trace infrastructures are any more tolerant to breakage than, say,
> those of the *old* ltt. [...]
are you saying that if i replaced half of the static markups with
function attributes (which would still provide equivalent functionality
to dynamic tracers), or if i removed a few dozen static markups with
dynamic scripts (which change too would be transparent to users of
dynamic tracers), that in this case users of static tracers would /not/
claim that tracing broke?
i fully understand that you can _teach_ the removal of static
tracepoints to LTT (and i'd expect no less from a tracer), but will
users accept the regression? I claim that they wont, and that's the
important issue. Frankly, i find it highly amusing that such seemingly
simple points have to be argued for such a long time. Is this really
necessary?
(since the rest of your mail seems to build on this premise, i'll wait
for your reply before replying to the rest.)
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]
