Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:56:28 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > [...] I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. > > > > annotation) could be acceptable. > > > > > > No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants > > > dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes). > > > > what you say is totally and utterly nonsensical misrepresentation of > > what i have said. I always said: i support in-source annotations too (I > > even suggested APIs how to do them), > > Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not > "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".'
I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent such a simple sentence. Let me quote the full paragraph of what i said:
> you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point > we were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm > happy to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely > usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet > that i disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers?
this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for _dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the "tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i explain it in more detail?
Ingo - 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/
| |