Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964840AbWIPXWo (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:22:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964841AbWIPXWo (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:22:44 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:39348 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964840AbWIPXWn (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:22:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 01:14:07 +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: <20060916231407.GA23132@elte.hu> References: <1158351780.5724.507.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060915204812.GA6909@elte.hu> <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> <20060916082214.GD6317@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: 0.4989] -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: 1048 Lines: 31 * Roman Zippel wrote: > [...] instead of delving further into secondary issues, please let me > get back to the primary issues [...] here's a list of some of those "secondary issues" that we were discussing, and which you opted not to "further dvelve into": firstly, a factually wrong statement of yours: > [...] any tracepoints have an maintainance overhead, which is barely > different between dynamic and static tracing [...] secondly, a factually wrong statement of yours: > [...] at the source level you can remove a static tracepoint as easily > as a dynamic tracepoint, [...] thirdly, a factually wrong statement of yours: > [...] It would also add virtually no maintainance overhead [...] [see the previous mails for the full context on these items.] 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/