Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750959AbWIUQSK (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:18:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751301AbWIUQSJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:18:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36758 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959AbWIUQSI (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:18:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:06:56 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Martin Bligh , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Masami Hiramatsu , prasanna@in.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , Mathieu Desnoyers , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Jes Sorensen , 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 0.5 for Linux 2.6.17 (with probe management) Message-ID: <20060921160656.GA24774@elte.hu> References: <20060921160009.GA30115@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060921160009.GA30115@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: 0.4969] -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: 974 Lines: 31 * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > +config MARK_SYMBOL > +config MARK_JUMP_CALL > +config MARK_JUMP_INLINE > +config MARK_JUMP same NACK over the proliferation of options as before: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=115881457219562&w=2 Tap, tap, is this thing on? ;) found one related reply from you that i didnt answer yet: "As an example, LTTng traces the page fault handler, when kprobes just can't instrument it." but tracing a raw pagefault at the arch level is a bad idea anyway, we want to trace __handle_mm_fault(). That way you can avoid having to modify every architecture's pagefault handler ... but the other points remained unanswered as far as i can see. 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/