Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:22:15 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |