Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932323AbWIPIat (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:30:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932322AbWIPIat (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:30:49 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:65414 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932323AbWIPIar (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:30:47 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:22:14 +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: <20060916082214.GD6317@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: 0.4976] -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: 1487 Lines: 32 * Roman Zippel wrote: > > > It's possible I missed something, but pretty much anything you > > > outlined wouldn't make the live of static tracepoints any easier. > > > > sorry, but if you re-read the above line of argument, your sentence > > appears non-sequitor. I said "the markers needed for dynamic tracing are > > different from the LTT static tracepoints". You asked why they are so > > different, and i replied that i already outlined what the right API > > would be in my opinion to do markups, but that API is different from > > what LTT is offering now. To which you are now replying: "pretty much > > anything you outlined wouldn't make the life of static tracepoints any > > easier." Huh? > > Yeah, huh? > > I have no idea, what you're trying to tell me. As you demonstrated > above your "right API" is barely usable for static tracers. you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point we were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm happy to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet that i disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers? 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/