Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:14:38 -0400 | | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > Amazing! So the trace data provided by those removed static markups > (which were moved into dynamic scripts and are thus still fully > available to dynamic tracers) are still available to LTT users? How is > that possible, via quantum tunneling perhaps? ;-)
Please run it one more time Mr. DJ: > What is sufficient for tracing a given set of events by means > of binary editing *that-does-not-require-out-of-tree-maintenance* > can be made to be sufficient for the tracing of events using ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > direct inlined static calls.
Do I really need to explain this one to you? Do I?
Bahhh, ok, here we go:
Previously alluded to script can easily be made to read mainlined dynamic scripts and generate alternate build files for the designate source. Let me know if I need to expand on this.
You know what, let's cut through the chase. Go ahead an mainline any infrastructure you think will be sufficient to make it possible to maintain SystemTap's essential _in the tree_. *Anything* that you insert in there to make it possible to make *any* dynamic tracer mainline can and likely will be used to obtain direct static calls. The only way this doesn't work is if the dynamic tracer folks have to continue maintaining their stuff out of tree.
See, this not only is Karim evil, but so too are the facts. Even when manipulated by Ingo, *mechanism* continues to be orthogonal to *markup*. Now that's evil.
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |