From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:50270 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751752AbZBVMYy (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:24:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:24:25 -0500 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/markers: make markers select tracepoints Message-ID: <20090222122424.GA9951@redhat.com> References: <499edf47.1818d00a.060b.2b8d@mx.google.com> <499EE162.4050008@oracle.com> <20090220172241.GF24538@elte.hu> <1235302980.4632.8.camel@laptop> <1235304876.4632.10.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235304876.4632.10.camel@laptop> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Randy Dunlap , Frederic Weisbecker , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org Hi - On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:14:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I would like to never merge an ftrace_printk() user... just as I'd like > > > to get rid of every marker. > > > > But why? They solve a problem well enough that Ingo had in effect > > reinvented them on Friday. > > Because after a printk() debug spree, I don't commit them, I toss them > out and keep the fix. Markers solve a problem closer to tracepoints than to debugging printk's. In this context, the main difference between tracepoints is that markers need almost no hand-written glue code of the sort that make up ftrace engines that just trace simple values. Simpler & smaller code for the same output seems like a win. - FChE