Re: [patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for sched-devel.git

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Monday, April 28, 2008 - 12:52 pm

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 11:36 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

Glad to lighten your day a little ;-)


Agreed, and I'm rather concerned about that as well. OTOH its very
unlikely we'll ever have a Linux that will not have a context switch, or
task wakeup operation.

So tracing these and things like syscall seem safe enough to do -
although I wish it wouldn't look so ugly. 

As for some of these other trace points in this set, dubious.

We can of course clearly state that any marker is free of API
constraints and users will have to cope with them changing. But I'm not
sure that's a realistic position.


Sure. Just to clarify my rationale, I like to keep the return type on
the same line when possible so you get a complete picture - the static
and inline qualifiers seem less important, but I don't particularly
care.



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

Messages in current thread:
[patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for sch ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Thu Apr 24, 8:03 am)
Re: [patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for ..., Mathieu Desnoyers, (Sat Apr 26, 1:11 pm)
Re: [patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Apr 28, 11:40 am)
Re: [patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Apr 28, 11:49 am)
Re: [patch 00/37] Linux Kernel Markers instrumentation for ..., Peter Zijlstra, (Mon Apr 28, 12:52 pm)