[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:0.022 / U:5.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site