On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:53 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:35:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 09:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:For example I'm currently working with dozens of trace_printk() and I would be
very happy to turn some of them off half of the time.
I guess we could try such a patch. If you send a prototype i'd be interested in
testing it out.
I don't see the point, the kernel shouldn't contain any trace_printk()s
to begin with..
It's oriented toward developers. Those who use dozens of tracepoints in
their tree because they are debugging something or developing a new feature,
they might to deactivate/reactivate some of these independant points.
This can also apply to dynamic_printk of course.
Well, the very first and main point is to standardize trace_printk into
a trace event so that it gets usable by perf tools. I have been asked many
times "how to use trace_printk() with perf?".
Thing is, since its these dev who add the trace_printk()s to begin with,
I don't see the point in splitting them out, if you didn't want them why
did you add them to begin with?!