Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:00:40 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |