Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:05 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ah, my bad, I was thikning tracepoint_probe_register() was the 
> > > thing that registered the tracepoint itself, not the callback.
> > > 
> > > Ok, then what's the problem?, don't do modules that consume their 
> > > own tracepoints, seems simple enough.
> > 
> > is this a reasonable restriction? I dont see any reason why the 
> > act of defining and providing a tracepoint should be exclusive 
> > of the ability to make use of it.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me, you don't need your own tracepoints 
> because you generate the events yourself, you already have them.

For a reasonable large subsystem/driver i can very well imagine this 
to happen: why should the subsystem add _another_ layer of callbacks 
if it can reuse the generic tracepoint code and register itself to 
those?

	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/