Re: [PATCH 2/4] tracing: add event trace infrastructure

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Andrew,

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:56:23 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Since the concept of a kernel tracing facility being
>> self-sufficient and being easy to use is an integral and key
>> concept to ftrace, dont you see why people take your suggestions
>> as a dismissal of the ftrace concept?

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nothing I've suggested in any way makes ftrace hard to use.
>
> If you guys had gone this way, you would not have screwed it up as much
> as you're suggesting.

I find it difficult to understand what is it exactly that you're
suggesting. AFAICT, the core of the argument is how much
post-processing should we do in the kernel. Now keeping all
post-processing out of the kernel will make (some) tracers less
user-friendly but we obviously don't want to do a full TeX in the
kernel either.

Maybe identifying the specific plug-ins you have problems with would
be useful? I only know some of the ftrace core and the kmemtrace
plug-in and I suspect the situation is similar for other plug-in
developers as well. So the problem here could be just that you're not
getting the message across to the right people.

                                      Pekka
--
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/