Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932371AbWIQTcV (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:32:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932372AbWIQTcV (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:32:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:3541 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932371AbWIQTcU (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:32:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:23:59 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Nick Piggin , 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: <20060917192359.GA24016@elte.hu> References: <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu> <20060916230031.GB20180@elte.hu> <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> <20060917152527.GC20225@elte.hu> <450D7EF0.3020805@yahoo.com.au> 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: 1196 Lines: 27 * Roman Zippel wrote: > > [...] I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. > > annotation) could be acceptable. > > No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants > dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes). what you say is totally and utterly nonsensical misrepresentation of what i have said. I always said: i support in-source annotations too (I even suggested APIs how to do them), as long as they are not a total _guaranteed_ set destined for static tracers, i.e. as long as they are there for the purpose of dynamic tracers. I dont _care_ about static annotations as long as they are there for dynamic tracers, because they can be moved into scripts if they cause problems. But static annotations for static tracers are much, much harder to remove. Please go on and read my "tracepoint maintainance models" email: Message-ID: <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> 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/