Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Jes Sorensen]

Roman Zippel wrote:
> The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty 
> much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel 
> will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good 
> tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so 
> that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few 
> people could understand and maintain.

How do you propose to handle the case where two tracepoint clients wants
slightly different data from the same function? I saw this with LTT
users where someone wanted things in different places in schedule().

It *is* a nightmare to maintain.

You still haven't explained your argument about kprobes not being
generally available - where?

Cheers,
Jes



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/