Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:44:25 +0200 | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Roman Zippel wrote: > The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty > much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel > will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good > tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so > that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few > people could understand and maintain.
How do you propose to handle the case where two tracepoint clients wants slightly different data from the same function? I saw this with LTT users where someone wanted things in different places in schedule().
It *is* a nightmare to maintain.
You still haven't explained your argument about kprobes not being generally available - where?
Cheers, Jes
- 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/
| |