Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:24:20 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing: add event trace infrastructure | From | Pekka Enberg <> |
| |
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:56:23 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> Since the concept of a kernel tracing facility being >> self-sufficient and being easy to use is an integral and key >> concept to ftrace, dont you see why people take your suggestions >> as a dismissal of the ftrace concept?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Nothing I've suggested in any way makes ftrace hard to use. > > If you guys had gone this way, you would not have screwed it up as much > as you're suggesting.
I find it difficult to understand what is it exactly that you're suggesting. AFAICT, the core of the argument is how much post-processing should we do in the kernel. Now keeping all post-processing out of the kernel will make (some) tracers less user-friendly but we obviously don't want to do a full TeX in the kernel either.
Maybe identifying the specific plug-ins you have problems with would be useful? I only know some of the ftrace core and the kmemtrace plug-in and I suspect the situation is similar for other plug-in developers as well. So the problem here could be just that you're not getting the message across to the right people.
Pekka
| |