[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:53:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 14:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, trace_printk() is a pure debug interface, solely meant for the edit
> > > + reboot cycle.
> >
> > So why prevent from making it even more handy?
> >
> >
> > > If you want anything more than that we've got tracepoints. The rule up
> > > until now has been to never merge a trace_printk() user.
> >
> > Sure, that doesn't change the core idea of trace_prink(): none of them must
> > be merged. That new event interface would just make private uses of trace_printk()
> > more convenient.
> I don't get it, if you don't want it, why put it there in the first
> place?
> I've never found myself thinking, oh damn, I didn't want to see that
> one!, only damn, I should have added more :-)

Hehe :)

Yeah I have a strange workflow. I'm working on that CPU isolation thing
and I have dozens of trace_printk all over the place for tons of
things. And everytime I remove one to unwind some output or to focus
on another one, I often have to restore it later because I need it
again. Usually I even just comment it out instead of removing it.

If I could make this dynamically on a per line filtering, or sometimes on
a per file granularity (as both are equally often the case for me), I would
probably win some time.

I just don't know how many developers have a similar workflow than mine.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-17 15:13    [W:0.183 / U:7.212 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site