Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965098AbWIQVE6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:04:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965100AbWIQVE6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:04:58 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:63391 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965098AbWIQVE5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:04:57 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:56:28 +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: <20060917205628.GA2145@elte.hu> References: <20060916230031.GB20180@elte.hu> <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> <20060917152527.GC20225@elte.hu> <450D7EF0.3020805@yahoo.com.au> <20060917192359.GA24016@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: 0.4998] -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: 1878 Lines: 43 * Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar 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), > > Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not > "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".' I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent such a simple sentence. Let me quote the full paragraph of what i said: > 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? this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for _dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the "tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i explain it in more detail? 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/