Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

[Masami Hiramatsu]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/