Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:17:13 -0700 | From | Martin Bligh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers |
| |
Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and >>make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? > > > If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based > markup?
Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work.
> Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase.
That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether > a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow > yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's > comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than > *everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out > of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)
Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than kprobes.
M. - 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/
| |