Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Masami Hiramatsu (masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Following this huge discussion thread, I tried to come with a marker mechanism
> > (which is something everyone seems to agree that is a necessity) that would be
> > useful to each kind of tracing (dynamic and static) (concerned projects :
> > SystemTAP, LKET, LKST, LTTng) and even combinations of those. Religious
> > considerations aside, I really think that this kind of generic markup is
> > necessary to fill *everybody*'s need. If I forgot about a specific genericity
> > aspect, please tell me.
> > 
> > I take for agreed that both static and dynamic tracing are useful for different
> > needs and that a full markup must support both and combinations, letting the
> > user or the distribution choose.
> 
> Basically, I like this static marker concept.
> But I wonder why wouldn't you use the architecture-independent
> marker which SystemTap already supports.
> If we use NOPs, it highly depends on architecture, and is hard
> to port.
> 

Hi Masami,

Are you talking about the marker presented by Frank in his OLS paper (
void dest() = NULL; if(dest) dest()) ? I think it is a very good idea to use it
instead of nops.

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 
-
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/