Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965392AbWIRFRV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:17:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965394AbWIRFRV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:17:21 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:58763 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965392AbWIRFRU (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:17:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:08:43 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Karim Yaghmour , 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: <20060918050843.GA28459@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> <20060918024343.GA23149@Krystal> <20060918032120.GA13076@elte.hu> <20060918042652.GB15930@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060918042652.GB15930@Krystal> 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: 0.4997] -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: 870 Lines: 24 * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > The following example voids your example : there are ways to implement > static markers that *could* have access to those variables. > (implementation detail) > > int x = 5; > > #define MARK(a) printk(a, x) but this is only hiding it syntactically, hence the same parameter-access side-effect remains - while in the dynamic probe case the variable is accessed within the probe - so the true effect on the callsite is different. But, in terms of having access to the information, you (and Karim) are right that the static tracer can access it too. 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/