Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:57:22 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: tracepoint maintainance models |
| |
* Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote:
> > MARK(event, a); > ... > > MARK(event, a, x); > > You assume these are mutually exclusive. [...]
Plese dont put words into my mouth. No, i dont assume they are mutually exclusive, did i ever claim that? But i very much still claim what my point was, and which point you disputed (at the same time also insulting me): that even if hell freezes over, a static tracer wont be able to extract 'x' from the MARK(event, a) markup. You accused me unfairly, you insulted me and i defended my point. In case you forgot, here again is the incident, in its entirety, where i make this point and you falsely dispute it:
> > There can be differences though to 'static tracepoints used by > > static tracers': for example there's no need to 'mark' a static > > variable, because dynamic tracers have access to it - while a static > > tracer would have to pass it into its trace-event function call. > > That has been your own personal experience of such things. Fortunately > by now you've provided to casual readers ample proof that such > experience is but limited and therefore misleading. The fact of the > matter is that *mechanisms* do not "magically" know what detail is > necessary for a given event or how to interpret it: only *markup* does > that.
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/
| |