Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:23:01 -0400 | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers |
| |
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? Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase. 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.)
Karim
- 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/
| |