lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

* Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com> wrote:

> > that's not true, and this is the important thing that i believe you
> > are missing. A dynamic tracepoint is _detached_ from the normal
> > source code and thus is zero maintainance overhead. You dont have to
> > maintain it during normal development - only if you need it. You
> > dont see the dynamic tracepoints in the source code.
>
> It's only zero maintenance overhead for you. Someone has to maintain
> it. The party line for years has been that in-tree maintenance is
> easier than out-of-tree maintenance.

There's a third option, and that's the one i'm advocating: adding the
tracepoint rules to the kernel, but in a _detached_ form from the actual
source code.

yes, someone has to maintain it, but that will be a detached effort, on
a low-frequency as-needed basis. It doesnt slow down or hinder
high-frequency fast prototyping work, it does not impact the source code
visually, and it does not make reading the code harder. Furthermore,
while a single broken LTT tracepoint prevents the kernel from building
at all, a single broken dynamic rule just wont be inserted into the
kernel. All the other rules are still very much intact.

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-14 22:13    [W:0.361 / U:7.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site