Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964936AbWIQPkB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:40:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964943AbWIQPkB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:40:01 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46496 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964936AbWIQPkA (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:40:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:31:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Roman Zippel , 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: <20060917153156.GA26209@elte.hu> References: <20060915204812.GA6909@elte.hu> <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu> <20060916231407.GA23132@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: 0.4966] -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: 1000 Lines: 24 * Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > As for Karim's proposed comment-based markers, I don't have a strong > opinion, not being one whose kernel-side code would be marked up one > way or the other. [...] What makes the difference isnt just the format of markup (although i fully agree that the least visually intrusive markup format should be used for static markers, and the range of possibilities includes comment-based markers too), but what makes the differen is: the /guarantee/ of a full (comprehensive) set to /static tracers/ The moment we allow a static tracer into the upstream kernel, we make that guarantee, implicitly and explicitly. (I've expanded on this line of argument in the previous few mails, extensively.) 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/