Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

[Martin Bligh]

Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and
> > make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)?
>
>
> If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based
> markup? 

Comment, marker macro, flat patch, don't care much. all would work.

> Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same codebase.

That was always the intent, or codebase + flat patch if really 
necessary. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

> It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether
> a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow
> yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's
> comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than
> *everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out
> of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)

Not sure we need scripts, just a normal patch diff would do. I'm not
sure any of this alters the markup debate much ... it just would seem
to provide a simpler, faster, and more flexible way of hooking in than
kprobes.

M.
-
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/