Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Karim Yaghmour]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah. If you look at the API suggestions i made, they are such. There 
> can be differences though to 'static tracepoints used by static 
> tracers': for example there's no need to 'mark' a static variable, 
> because dynamic tracers have access to it - while a static tracer would 
> have to pass it into its trace-event function call.

That has been your own personal experience of such things. Fortunately
by now you've provided to casual readers ample proof that such
experience is but limited and therefore misleading. The fact of the
matter is that *mechanisms* do not "magically" know what detail is
necessary for a given event or how to interpret it: only *markup* does
that.

Karim
-- 
President  / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
www.opersys.com  /  1.866.677.4546
-
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/