lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, my bad, I was thikning tracepoint_probe_register() was the
> > > > thing that registered the tracepoint itself, not the callback.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, then what's the problem?, don't do modules that consume their
> > > > own tracepoints, seems simple enough.
> > >
> > > is this a reasonable restriction? I dont see any reason why the
> > > act of defining and providing a tracepoint should be exclusive
> > > of the ability to make use of it.
> >
> > It doesn't make sense to me, you don't need your own tracepoints
> > because you generate the events yourself, you already have them.
>
> For a reasonable large subsystem/driver i can very well imagine this
> to happen: why should the subsystem add _another_ layer of callbacks
> if it can reuse the generic tracepoint code and register itself to
> those?

Then that subsystem would be non functioning when the kernel is build
without tracepoints.

Nothing should rely on tracepoint being present, they are and should
remain a debug feature, not a core hook thing.

Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra logic
needed to deal with modules?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-25 12:35    [W:0.101 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site