Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:56:24 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models |
| |
* Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote:
> There is, actually, no reason to believe that end-users of dynamic > trace infrastructures are any more tolerant to breakage than, say, > those of the *old* ltt. [...]
are you saying that if i replaced half of the static markups with function attributes (which would still provide equivalent functionality to dynamic tracers), or if i removed a few dozen static markups with dynamic scripts (which change too would be transparent to users of dynamic tracers), that in this case users of static tracers would /not/ claim that tracing broke?
i fully understand that you can _teach_ the removal of static tracepoints to LTT (and i'd expect no less from a tracer), but will users accept the regression? I claim that they wont, and that's the important issue. Frankly, i find it highly amusing that such seemingly simple points have to be argued for such a long time. Is this really necessary?
(since the rest of your mail seems to build on this premise, i'll wait for your reply before replying to the rest.)
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/
| |