[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 4/4] KVM-trace port to tracepoints
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There are currently no trace_mark() sites in the kernel that I'm aware
> of (except for the scheduler :-/, and those should be converted to
> tracepoints ASAP).
> Andrew raised the whole point about trace_mark() generating an
> user-visible interface and thus it should be stable, and I agree with
> that.
> What that means is that trace_mark() can only be used for really stable
> points.
> This in turn means we might as well use trace points.
> Which allows for the conclusion that trace_mark() is not needed and
> could be removed from the kernel.
> However - it might be handy for ad-hoc debugging purposes that never see
> the light of day (linus' git tree in this case). So on those grounds one
> could argue against removing trace_mark

But trace_mark() is so wonderful. Can't we just declare the tracemarks
as a non-stable interface?

Perhaps add an unstable_trace_mark() to make it clear.

error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-23 11:35    [W:0.055 / U:6.424 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site