Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:20:27 +0900 | From | Masami Hiramatsu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers |
| |
Hi,
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hello, > > Following this huge discussion thread, I tried to come with a marker mechanism > (which is something everyone seems to agree that is a necessity) that would be > useful to each kind of tracing (dynamic and static) (concerned projects : > SystemTAP, LKET, LKST, LTTng) and even combinations of those. Religious > considerations aside, I really think that this kind of generic markup is > necessary to fill *everybody*'s need. If I forgot about a specific genericity > aspect, please tell me. > > I take for agreed that both static and dynamic tracing are useful for different > needs and that a full markup must support both and combinations, letting the > user or the distribution choose.
Basically, I like this static marker concept. But I wonder why wouldn't you use the architecture-independent marker which SystemTap already supports. If we use NOPs, it highly depends on architecture, and is hard to port.
Thanks,
-- Masami HIRAMATSU 2nd Research Dept. Hitachi, Ltd., Systems Development Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
- 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/
| |