Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750929AbWISQST (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:18:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750943AbWISQST (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:18:19 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:21918 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750905AbWISQSS (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:18:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent: x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VQIeBqvBILvkHP51WcUKltB0q3A+9d2eBBvkQSFTODsf87vLo8iRwC0mD4q44sNZ5 rhalZodVx9O8P8oDzB67g== Message-ID: <45101809.5030906@google.com> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:17:13 -0700 From: Martin Bligh User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051011) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: karim@opersys.com CC: Ingo Molnar , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , Michel Dagenais , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , ltt-dev@shafik.org, systemtap@sources.redhat.com, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers References: <20060918234502.GA197@Krystal> <20060919081124.GA30394@elte.hu> <451008AC.6030006@google.com> <45101965.3050509@opersys.com> In-Reply-To: <45101965.3050509@opersys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1380 Lines: 35 Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and >>make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)? > > > If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based > markup? Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work. > Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase. That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether > a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow > yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's > comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than > *everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out > of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.) Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than kprobes. M. - 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/