lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-18 05:13    [W:0.126 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site