Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965202AbWIRBFW (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:05:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965204AbWIRBFW (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:05:22 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:39400 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965202AbWIRBFU (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:05:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:56:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Nicholas Miell , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Roman Zippel , 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: <20060918005624.GA30835@elte.hu> References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <1158524390.2471.49.camel@entropy> <20060917230623.GD8791@elte.hu> <450DEEA5.7080808@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <450DEEA5.7080808@opersys.com> 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: 1320 Lines: 30 * Karim Yaghmour wrote: > There is, actually, no reason to believe that end-users of dynamic > trace infrastructures are any more tolerant to breakage than, say, > those of the *old* ltt. [...] are you saying that if i replaced half of the static markups with function attributes (which would still provide equivalent functionality to 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 users of static tracers would /not/ claim that tracing broke? i fully understand that you can _teach_ the removal of static tracepoints to LTT (and i'd expect no less from a tracer), but will users accept the regression? I claim that they wont, and that's the important issue. Frankly, i find it highly amusing that such seemingly simple points have to be argued for such a long time. Is this really necessary? (since the rest of your mail seems to build on this premise, i'll wait for your reply before replying to the rest.) 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/