Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Lai Jiangshan
Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 - 8:55 pm

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

Hi, Mathieu,

I strongly reject for removing tracepoint_mutex and marker_mutex.

As an independent subsystem, we should use our own locks. Do not use others.
otherwise coupling will be increased in linux kernel.
I condemn unnecessary coupling.

Our tracepoint & marker had tied to modules(for traveling all tracepoints
or markers). The best thing is that we do not increase the coupling.

[PATCH 2/2] tracepoint: introduce *_noupdate APIs.
is helpful for auto-active-tracepoint-mechanism.

		Thanx, Lai.



--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Oct 23, 5:45 pm)
Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3, Lai Jiangshan, (Mon Oct 27, 8:55 pm)
Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Wed Oct 29, 10:40 am)
Re: [ltt-dev] [sadump 04308] Re: LTTng 0.44 and LTTV 0.11.3, Mathieu Desnoyers, (Wed Oct 29, 11:01 pm)