lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
    Karim Yaghmour wrote:
    > Martin J. Bligh wrote:
    >
    >>Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and
    >>make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)?
    >
    >
    > If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based
    > markup?

    Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work.

    > Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase.

    That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really
    necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    > It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether
    > a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow
    > yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's
    > comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than
    > *everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out
    > of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)

    Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not
    sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem
    to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than
    kprobes.

    M.
    -
    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: 2006-09-19 18:21    [W:0.023 / U:59.892 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site