Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Ingo Molnar]

* Karim Yaghmour <karim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >        MARK(event, a);
> ...
> > 	MARK(event, a, x);
> 
> You assume these are mutually exclusive. [...]

Plese dont put words into my mouth. No, i dont assume they are mutually 
exclusive, did i ever claim that? But i very much still claim what my 
point was, and which point you disputed (at the same time also insulting 
me): that even if hell freezes over, a static tracer wont be able to 
extract 'x' from the MARK(event, a) markup. You accused me unfairly, you 
insulted me and i defended my point. In case you forgot, here again is 
the incident, in its entirety, where i make this point and you falsely 
dispute it:

> > 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.

	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/