Re: Human readable output for function return tracer

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> I made a patch last evening and I almost finished implementing the
> desired output.
>
> But while I went through, I was adding some more keywords with other 
> "return-function-tracing" semantics, plus the risk of confusion 
> resulting from the entry-on-function-for-return-tracing keywords....
> 
> I planned to change all the keywords according to a new name for 
> this tracer just after this patch. But I can't seriously submit such 
> a mess, even with a second patch that fixes the keywords....
> 
> I would like to change the name of the tracer and its keywords 
> before sending the output changes.

> Do you agree with "full function tracer" (since we hook now on the 
> two sides)?

"full function tracer" sounds a bit funny and quirky. How about 
"function call tracer"? Versus the "function tracer" or "function 
entry tracer" which is the lighter variant - both in name and in 
overhead. So we'd have:

 # cat /debug/tracing/available_tracers 
 mmiotrace wakeup irqsoff function function-call sysprof sched_switch initcall nop

note how intuitive it is: "function-call" is 'more' than just the 
plain function-tracer. It also expresses its main property: it traces 
the full call, entry and exit and return code as well.

Hm?

	Ingo