Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:55:22 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3 |
| |
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > - I have also vastly simplified locking in the markers and tracepoints > by using _only_ the modules mutex. I actually took this mutex out of > module.c and created its own file so tracepoints and markers can use > it. That should please Lai Jiangshan. Although he may have some work > to do to see how his new probes manager might benefit from it. > > See : > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=7aea87ac46df7613d68034f5904bc8d575069076 > and > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=5f6814237f7a67650e7b6214d916825e3f8fc1b7 > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/compudj/linux-2.6-lttng.git;a=commitdiff;h=410ba66a1cbe27a611e1c18c0a53e87b4652a2c9 >
Hi, Mathieu,
I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.
As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others. otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel. I condemn unnecessary coupling.
Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.
[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs. is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.
Thanx, Lai.
> So hopefully everyone will be happy with this new release. :) > > Mathieu >
| |