Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3

[Lai Jiangshan]

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
> 


--
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/