Re: [patch 4/4] KVM-trace port to tracepoints

[Avi Kivity]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 21:46 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
> > Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >     
> > > That's true - as long as you don't have to add/remove/modify
> > > tracepoints. I had to do this job in the past (not for KVM). Having 1
> > > spot in 1 file (based on generic probes) would be handier in that case
> > > than 5 spots in 3 files. But if the KVM tracepoints are considered
> > > stable in their number and structure, that shouldn't be an issue here.
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > Tracepoints aren't stable; they are artefacts of the implementation.
> >     
>
> Which IMHO makes it unsuitable for trace_mark() as that will be exported
> to user-space, and every time you change your tracepoints you'll change
> user visible things - not nice.
>   

They are used for debugging (mostly performance related), so changes are 
expected.

What uses of trace_mark() depend on a stable interface? blktrace?


--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/