Re: [Patch 1/2] Trace code and documentation (resend)

From: David Wilder
Date: Mon Sep 24 2007 - 12:46:01 EST

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 08:38:34AM -0700, David Wilder wrote:
NACK, don't put code into Documentation/. Put it into kernel as it's
actually useful kernel code.
Are you suggesting moving the example code into kernel? Or complaining about example code in /Documentation?

Both. example code should be integrated with the build system so it
gets built.

I agree, but I have not seen this done before, can you point me at an example of how to structure this?

And add clone,exec and exit while you're at it.

Hu? A syscall tracer sounds like a nice idea but that is not what I am trying to accomplish. I will let Systemtap handle that.

Systemtap doesn't help anyone as it's not in the tree. I haven't even
asked you to provide a full system call tracing modulem but provide at
least one that's useful for a certain use-case (looking at processes)
instead of almost useless code.

I don't have a problem adding additional trace points to the example code. However, anyone trying to use the code for some real purpose will want to tweak the code based on their needs, at a minimum to select what data to trace. I don't think we gain much by adding more to the example other than to make it more complicated. I am strong believer in keeping example code as simple as possible.

If you are suggesting adding a separate feature for process tracing (not just an example) that is a good idea also. But is should be a separate patch, not part of the trace patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at