[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] tracing: add event trace infrastructure
Hi Andrew,

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:56:23 +0100 Ingo Molnar <> 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
<> 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-25 11:27    [W:0.065 / U:5.456 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site