Re: tracepoint maintainance models

Hi -

alan wrote:

> I think your implementation is questionable if it causes any kind of
> jumps and conditions, even marked unlikely. Just put the needed data in
> a seperate section which can be used by the debugging tools. [...]
> No need to actually mess with the code for the usual cases.

Trouble is that it is specifically the *unusual* cases that need
compiler assistance via static markers, otherwise we'd manage with
just k/djprobes & debuginfo type efforts.

- FChE

Attachment: pgp8MPnmbXeuO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: tracepoint maintainance models
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
• Next by Date: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
• Previous by thread: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
• Next by thread: Re: tracepoint maintainance models
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]