lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

    * Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com> wrote:

    > > that's not true, and this is the important thing that i believe you
    > > are missing. A dynamic tracepoint is _detached_ from the normal
    > > source code and thus is zero maintainance overhead. You dont have to
    > > maintain it during normal development - only if you need it. You
    > > dont see the dynamic tracepoints in the source code.
    >
    > It's only zero maintenance overhead for you. Someone has to maintain
    > it. The party line for years has been that in-tree maintenance is
    > easier than out-of-tree maintenance.

    There's a third option, and that's the one i'm advocating: adding the
    tracepoint rules to the kernel, but in a _detached_ form from the actual
    source code.

    yes, someone has to maintain it, but that will be a detached effort, on
    a low-frequency as-needed basis. It doesnt slow down or hinder
    high-frequency fast prototyping work, it does not impact the source code
    visually, and it does not make reading the code harder. Furthermore,
    while a single broken LTT tracepoint prevents the kernel from building
    at all, a single broken dynamic rule just wont be inserted into the
    kernel. All the other rules are still very much intact.

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-14 22:13    [W:2.659 / U:0.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site