Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751563AbWIREgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:36:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751566AbWIREgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:36:43 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:50449 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751562AbWIREgm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:36:42 -0400 Message-ID: <450E2739.7020008@opersys.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:57:29 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar 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 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> <20060918005624.GA30835@elte.hu> <450DFFC8.5080005@opersys.com> <20060918033027.GB11894@elte.hu> <450E1D2E.3080705@opersys.com> <20060918040947.GA21191@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060918040947.GA21191@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2119 Lines: 45 Ingo Molnar wrote: > That suggestion is so funny to me that i'll let it stand here in its > absurdity :) Did i get it right, you are suggesting for LTT to build a > full SystemTap interpreter, an script-to-C compiler, an embedded-C > script interpreter, just to be able to build-time generate the SystemTap > scripts back into the source code? Dont you realize that you've just > invented SystemTap, sans the ability to remove inactive code? ;) Yes, an arbitrary factual fallacy for a change. I won't even get into how trivial it would be to hack the SystemTap interpreter for the purposes I state. Or any other part of your supposed argument for that matter. Anyone seeking to implement what I outlined already has plenty of information. > I know a much easier method: a "static tracer" can do all of that (and > more), if you rename "SystemTap" to "static tracer" ;-) There is no point to debate further. You clearly have no intention of having the decency to stand tall, make a man of yourself and acknowledge that you were shown wrong. No matter what I put forward, you're going to stubbornly reply and construct false arguments to defend a now indefensible point of view -- all the while making those snide remarks about the time you are wasting and all (that's a classic, by the way, for presumed experts when loosing face.) Go back, Ingo, and read my earlier posts regarding what such attitude has in terms of encouraging input from outsiders. I, personally, have said everything that needed to be said. The record is there if someone is looking for the answers. I only chose to come back to make sure the following semantic distinction clear: markup != mechanism != event list. And I've proven that, whether you'd care to acknowledge it or not. Karim -- President / Opersys Inc. Embedded Linux Training and Expertise www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546 - 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/