This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [RFC][Patch 2/2] markers: example of irq regular kernel markers
- From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com>
- To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat at redhat dot com>
- Cc: kosaki dot motohiro at jp dot fujitsu dot com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at polymtl dot ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, systemtap-ml <systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com>, Hideo AOKI <haoki at redhat dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:19:29 +0900
- Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch 2/2] markers: example of irq regular kernel markers
- References: <20080621180203.GA11804@redhat.com> <485DD589.6070503@redhat.com>
> Peter, I thought, we were discussing what interface we could accept,
> not how many or where tracepoints we could accept. Or, am I misreading?
>
> I know that if someone pushes markers into kernel in his own sweet way,
> of course, the kernel code will be bloated endlessly. But I also know
> why we review patches and send Ack/Nack before merging them to the tree.
> (If you still worry about it, we might be able to make linux-markers
> git tree, and review all regular markers on it)
Indeed.
if necessary, I can maintain this tree.
(because, I hope marker is independent by LTTng and SystemTap.
So, I am no related any tracer in this discussion member.)
but, at first,
We should review and discuss to Mathieu's new tracepoint proposal.
I think that is good idea.