* Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
> > MARK(event, a);
> ...
> > MARK(event, a, x);
>
> You assume these are mutually exclusive. [...]
Plese dont put words into my mouth. No, i dont assume they are mutually
exclusive, did i ever claim that? But i very much still claim what my
point was, and which point you disputed (at the same time also insulting
me): that even if hell freezes over, a static tracer wont be able to
extract 'x' from the MARK(event, a) markup. You accused me unfairly, you
insulted me and i defended my point. In case you forgot, here again is
the incident, in its entirety, where i make this point and you falsely
dispute it:
> > 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.
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]
