Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965160AbWIQXuE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:50:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932360AbWIQXuE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:50:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43675 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932149AbWIQXuB (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:50:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:41:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel 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 Message-ID: <20060917234152.GA20374@elte.hu> 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 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: 0.5000] -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: 1950 Lines: 41 * Roman Zippel wrote: > 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. [...] i'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if i replaced half of the static markups with function attributes (which would still provide equivalent functionality for dynamic tracers), or if i removed a few dozen static markups with dynamic scripts (which change too would be transparent to users of dynamic tracers), that in this case static tracers would /not/ break? [if yes then that would be the most puzzling suggestion ever posed in this thread] > 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. no serious trace user would accept it if for example half of their static tracepoints would go away, because for example they were made dynamic (or they were made function attributes). that's the plain meaning of what i said. Were we to accept static tracers, we'd be stuck with the full set of static tracepoints for a long time, because users of static tracers would not accept a significant reduction in the number of tracepoints. (even if those "reduced" tracepoints were in fact just moved over to dynamic probes) Was it truly confusing to you what i said? (in words that i thought were more than clear) Please let me know and i'll try to formulate more verbosely and more clearly when replying to you. This must be some fundamental communication issue between you and me. 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/