Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Ingo Molnar]

* Karim Yaghmour <karim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There is, actually, no reason to believe that end-users of dynamic 
> trace infrastructures are any more tolerant to breakage than, say, 
> those of the *old* ltt. [...]

are you saying that if i replaced half of the static markups with 
function attributes (which would still provide equivalent functionality 
to dynamic tracers), or if i removed a few dozen static markups with 
dynamic scripts (which change too would be transparent to users of 
dynamic tracers), that in this case users of static tracers would /not/ 
claim that tracing broke?

i fully understand that you can _teach_ the removal of static 
tracepoints to LTT (and i'd expect no less from a tracer), but will 
users accept the regression? I claim that they wont, and that's the 
important issue. Frankly, i find it highly amusing that such seemingly 
simple points have to be argued for such a long time. Is this really 
necessary?

(since the rest of your mail seems to build on this premise, i'll wait 
for your reply before replying to the rest.)

	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/