[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: tracepoint maintainance models

    * Roman Zippel <> wrote:

    > What is so special between users of dynamic and static tracers, that
    > the former will never complain, if some tracepoint doesn't work
    > anymore?

    If by breakage you mean accidental regressions, i was not talking about
    accidental breakages when i suggested that dynamic tracers would not see
    them. The "breakage" i talked about, and which would cause regressions
    to static tracer users but would not be noticed by dynamic tracer users

    _the moving of a static marker to a dynamic script_

    (see <>, my first paragraph there. Also see
    <> for the same topic.)

    this breaks static tracers, but dynamic tracers remain unaffected,
    because the dynamic probe (or the function attribute) still offers
    equivalent functionality. Hence users of dynamic tracers still have the
    same functionality - while users of static tracers see breakage. Ok?

    If you meant accidental breakages, then of course users of both types of
    tracers would be affected, but even in this case there's a more subtle
    difference here, which i explained in <>:

    >> In fact, with dynamic tracers, an end-user visible breakage can even
    >> be fixed _after the main kernel has been released, compiled and
    >> booted on the end-user's system_. Systemtap scripts can be updated on
    >> live systems. So there is very, very little maintainance pressure
    >> caused by dynamic tracing.

    i hope this explains.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-18 01:43    [W:0.029 / U:8.340 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site