[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC Patch 1/1] trace_printk and trace_dump interface - v2
    On Wed, 21 May 2008 01:23:09 +0530
    "K.Prasad" <> wrote:

    > The name 'trace' (previously GTSC), I gather that it was the chosen after
    > much deliberation (, however I'm open to the
    > idea of changing the name (say dbg_printk/dbg_dump?).
    > Kindly let me know of your suggestions for this, and I will change them
    > during the next version.

    Well I was just putting it out there for consideration. Yes, I think
    the whole idea of consuming the "trace_*" namespace in this patchset
    was ill-advised.

    Also, I don't know how to move forward with the whole feature - I
    haven't seen a lot of interest from others and I haven't seen much
    discussion of how this feature differs from all the other tracing
    things which have been floating about.

    And even if the proposed patches presently offer unique and useful
    features, will one of the other tracing implementations (eg: ltt) later
    grow to close that gap?

    I'm also a bit dubious about the whole thing based on past experience
    with kernel-developer-only in-kernel tools. People just don't use them
    much. One example: fault injection.

    > Will something like this look better?

    If it addresses the comment I raised, sure. Please satisfy yourself
    that it does.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-20 22:15    [W:0.024 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site