lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, my bad, I was thikning tracepoint_probe_register() was the
> > > thing that registered the tracepoint itself, not the callback.
> > >
> > > Ok, then what's the problem?, don't do modules that consume their
> > > own tracepoints, seems simple enough.
> >
> > is this a reasonable restriction? I dont see any reason why the
> > act of defining and providing a tracepoint should be exclusive
> > of the ability to make use of it.
>
> It doesn't make sense to me, you don't need your own tracepoints
> because you generate the events yourself, you already have them.

For a reasonable large subsystem/driver i can very well imagine this
to happen: why should the subsystem add _another_ layer of callbacks
if it can reuse the generic tracepoint code and register itself to
those?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-25 12:25    [W:0.076 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site