[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers

    * Frédéric Weisbecker <> wrote:

    > 2008/11/13 Ingo Molnar <>:
    > > hm, function-exit is a quite bad name i think that tells nothing to
    > > the user. I like "function-cost tracer" because that tells the user
    > > what it's all about in the end.
    > >
    > > Or perhaps we could name it the "callgraph" tracer? (as opposed to the
    > > simpler function tracer which traces function entries) Note that we
    > > could use the output to build function call coverage graphs.
    > But you can build a call graph with the function tracer, that what
    > does the script in a bit loosely way for example.

    yes, but not reliably so - there's no guaranteed callgraph structure.
    With entry tracing we have entry+parent events, but especially across
    longer callchains there's no truly guaranteed way to preserve the full

    > IMHO, function cost measurement or call graphs are particular uses
    > that can be made of this engine. You can also use it to trace
    > function return values for example.

    yes. The mockup output has place for that.

    > So perhaps naming it by thinking on the purpose it could be use at
    > most would be better that its "general" or "potential" purpose. I
    > don't know...

    i suggested "full-function" tracer name before, but that sounds a bit
    quirky too.

    Perhaps this should be the function-tracer, and the entry tracer would
    be the function-entry tracer?

    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: 2008-11-13 10:47    [W:0.022 / U:2.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site