Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Ingo Molnar]

* Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > > [...] I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg. 
> > > > annotation) could be acceptable.
> > > 
> > > No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants 
> > > dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes).
> > 
> > what you say is totally and utterly nonsensical misrepresentation of 
> > what i have said. I always said: i support in-source annotations too (I 
> > even suggested APIs how to do them),
> 
> Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not 
> "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".'

I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent 
such a simple sentence. Let me quote the full paragraph of what i said:

> you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point 
> we were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm 
> happy to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely 
> usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet 
> that i disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers?

this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for 
static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for 
_dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static 
tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static 
markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the 
"tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i 
explain it in more detail?

	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/