Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932320AbWIPI3Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:29:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932321AbWIPI3Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:29:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:49542 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932320AbWIPI3X (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:29:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:21:07 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Thomas Gleixner , karim@opersys.com, Andrew Morton , Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 Message-ID: <20060916082107.GB6317@elte.hu> References: <1158348954.5724.481.camel@localhost.localdomain> <450B0585.5070700@opersys.com> <1158351780.5724.507.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060915204812.GA6909@elte.hu> <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4999] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1044 Lines: 22 * Roman Zippel wrote: > [...] It would also add virtually no maintainance overhead as you like > to claim - how often does this function change? as i said, roughly half of the tracepoints are like this - and some of them in functions in frequented places. That's far from "virtually no maintainance overhead". In the -rt tree i have never more than a dozen static tracepoints, yet even this small amount caused at least 5 extra -rt tree iterations due to various breakages (build problems or even crashes). Cruft comes in small steps, and my worry is that such _unremovable_ markups will be cruft that never shrinks. With dynamic tracers i see the _chance_ for cruft to shift to places where it does not hurt, if that cruft turns out to become a hindrance. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/