Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrunfield

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2008/11/18 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > 2008/11/18 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> How about a compromise, start off the patch series getting it working with
> >> task struct static array, and then finish the series with the dynamic
> >> array.
> >>
> >> This is my development model, because it lets me know where the bugs are
> >> better. If we find some strange bug, this can help pin point via a bisect
> >> if the bug is with the general code, or with the use of a dynamic array.
> >>
> >> Just my preference ;-)
> >
> >
> > Ooh. I first agreed with Ingo's arguments about the fact that distros
> > can enable it whithout worrying.
> > But as I read your message, I guess that would be better to start with
> > static arrays to better find the bugs,
> > state by state...
> >
> > Ingo, what do you think?
> >
> 
> And then a last state with dynamic arrays...

it's your call really, either way is fine as long as the end result 
works! :-)

Generally it's indeed much easier to do as small steps as possible, 
and to validate every step in practice.

	Ingo
--
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/