Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:08:29 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [patch 4/4] KVM-trace port to tracepoints |
| |
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 21:46 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> That's true - as long as you don't have to add/remove/modify >>> tracepoints. I had to do this job in the past (not for KVM). Having 1 >>> spot in 1 file (based on generic probes) would be handier in that case >>> than 5 spots in 3 files. But if the KVM tracepoints are considered >>> stable in their number and structure, that shouldn't be an issue here. >>> >>> >>> >> Tracepoints aren't stable; they are artefacts of the implementation. >> > > Which IMHO makes it unsuitable for trace_mark() as that will be exported > to user-space, and every time you change your tracepoints you'll change > user visible things - not nice. >
They are used for debugging (mostly performance related), so changes are expected.
What uses of trace_mark() depend on a stable interface? blktrace?
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |