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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * 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?

Then that subsystem would be non functioning when the kernel is build
without tracepoints.

Nothing should rely on tracepoint being present, they are and should
remain a debug feature, not a core hook thing.

Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra logic
needed to deal with modules?


--
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/