Re: [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: updates to tip

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > maybe we could drive this via the filter API? Something like:
> > 
> >    echo "*btrfs*:stacktrace" >> set_filter_functions
> > 
> > Would automatically mean that those functions will all generate 
> > stacktraces too. Note how safe this API is by default: the filter is used 
> > for a narrow scope of functions anwyay. To get it for all kernel functions 
> > one would have to do:
> > 
> >    echo "*:stacktrace" >> set_filter_functions
> > 
> > Which one cannot do accidentally.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Now that I see only a 1/2 sec lag, do you still think this is necessary?
> 
> Maybe I should go back and see why it was so bad before?
> 
> But I do notice that not all functions produce a valid stack trace. 
> Maybe it would be better to add that api :-?

yes - i think that API would be more intuitive, and that way people could 
mix more interesting functions (with stack traces) with less important 
functions (no stack traces).

	Ingo
--
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/