[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:0.022 / U:12.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site