Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:59:49 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > > > > Hmm... The whole thing is splitted in two levels: the infrastructure > > to trace on call and return (and call > > a return handler) and the higher level tracer. > > The first could be called ftrace_exit because it is waht it does. > > And the second is much more about cost evaluation of functions and so > > could be named function_cost. Its > > functions and structures could have this in their name whereas the low > > level things could have ftrace_exit in > > their name. > > > > What do you think? > > Yeah, I like that. > > Ingo, what's your thought on that?
hm, function-exit is a quite bad name i think that tells nothing to the user. I like "function-cost tracer" because that tells the user what it's all about in the end.
Or perhaps we could name it the "callgraph" tracer? (as opposed to the simpler function tracer which traces function entries) Note that we could use the output to build function call coverage graphs.
It definitely must convey the idea that this is a more capable (and also more expensive) form of function tracing.
Ingo
| |