[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:0.200 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site