Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965034AbWIQRSy (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:18:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965035AbWIQRSy (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:18:54 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:10683 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965034AbWIQRSx (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:18:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:18:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Paul Mundt , Karim Yaghmour , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Mathieu Desnoyers , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models In-Reply-To: <20060917150953.GB20225@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <20060917150953.GB20225@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1819 Lines: 37 Hi, On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > of course it's easy to have static markup that is usable for both types > of tracers - but that is of little use. Static tracers also need the > guarantee of a _full set_ of static markups. It is that _guarantee_ of a > full set that i'm arguing against primarily. Without that guarantee it's > useless to have markups that can be used by static tracers as well: you > wont get a full set of tracepoints and the end-user will complain. > (partial static markups are of course still very useful to dynamic > tracers) And yet again, you offer no prove at all and just work from assumptions. You throw in some magic "_full set_" of marker and just assume any change in that will completely break static tracers. You just assume that we absolutely must make this "guarantee" for static tracers, as if static tracer can't be updated at all. You completely ignore that it might be possible to create some rules and educate users that the amount of exported events can't be completely static. What is so special between users of dynamic and static tracers, that the former will never complain, if some tracepoint doesn't work anymore? Do you really think that users of static tracers are that stupid, that they are not aware of its limitations? Of course they sometimes have to maintain their own set of tracepoints (especially in the area of kernel development). That still doesn't change the fact that _any_ trace user will benefit from a base set of tracepoints, which you seem to think can't exist. bye, Roman - 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/