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

[Avi Kivity]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There are currently no trace_mark() sites in the kernel that I'm aware
> of (except for the scheduler :-/, and those should be converted to
> tracepoints ASAP).
>
> Andrew raised the whole point about trace_mark() generating an
> user-visible interface and thus it should be stable, and I agree with
> that.
>
> What that means is that trace_mark() can only be used for really stable
> points.
>
> This in turn means we might as well use trace points.
>
> Which allows for the conclusion that trace_mark() is not needed and
> could be removed from the kernel.
>
> However - it might be handy for ad-hoc debugging purposes that never see
> the light of day (linus' git tree in this case). So on those grounds one
> could argue against removing trace_mark

But trace_mark() is so wonderful.  Can't we just declare the tracemarks 
as a non-stable interface?

Perhaps add an unstable_trace_mark() to make it clear.

--
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/