Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965349AbWIRDGZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:06:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965345AbWIRDGZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:06:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:46008 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965344AbWIRDGY (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:06:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:57:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Roman Zippel , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models Message-ID: <20060918025722.GA11894@elte.hu> References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <20060917153633.GA29987@Krystal> <20060918000703.GA22752@elte.hu> <450DF28E.3050101@opersys.com> <20060918011352.GB30835@elte.hu> <450E053B.1070908@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <450E053B.1070908@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: 1570 Lines: 35 * Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > MARK(event, a); > ... > > MARK(event, a, x); > > You assume these are mutually exclusive. [...] Plese dont put words into my mouth. No, i dont assume they are mutually exclusive, did i ever claim that? But i very much still claim what my point was, and which point you disputed (at the same time also insulting me): that even if hell freezes over, a static tracer wont be able to extract 'x' from the MARK(event, a) markup. You accused me unfairly, you insulted me and i defended my point. In case you forgot, here again is the incident, in its entirety, where i make this point and you falsely dispute it: > > There can be differences though to 'static tracepoints used by > > static tracers': for example there's no need to 'mark' a static > > variable, because dynamic tracers have access to it - while a static > > tracer would have to pass it into its trace-event function call. > > That has been your own personal experience of such things. Fortunately > by now you've provided to casual readers ample proof that such > experience is but limited and therefore misleading. The fact of the > matter is that *mechanisms* do not "magically" know what detail is > necessary for a given event or how to interpret it: only *markup* does > that. 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/