[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

    * Roman Zippel <> wrote:

    > > I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and
    > > misrepresent such a simple sentence.
    > Considering the context, which is not exactly full of support for
    > static tracer, I think my understanding was and still is quite
    > correct.

    this thought of you is still false. Nick said:

    ' I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. annotation)
    could be acceptable. '

    to which you replied:

    ' No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants
    dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes). '

    That "No" word at the beginning of your sentence, by its plain meaning,
    falsely questions Nick's correct interpretation of what I said. I ask
    you to retract or correct this false statement.

    Nick is of course correct: i said before that some static markups could
    be acceptable. In fact, i even outlined a possible API for such static
    markups in Would I want to reduce the
    number of such static markups: of course, not wanting to reduce the
    number of subsystem-functionality unrelated source code lines would be

    > > this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for
    > > static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for
    > > _dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static
    > > tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static
    > > markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per
    > > the "tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or
    > > should i explain it in more detail?
    > Well, I rather just wait for the real patch, where you can show your
    > support for all possible users.

    this answer of yours does not rectify the false statement you did.

    Your sentence also introduces a new misrepresentation of my intentions:
    my intention with partial static markups (which intention i've written
    to you about before, so it was known to you when you wrote this
    stentence) is not to support "all possible users", but to support
    dynamic tracers. Static tracers cannot use static markups that go away
    into dynamic tracing scripts.

    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 00:27    [W:0.024 / U:58.900 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site