From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:36291 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754043Ab0GTHya (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:54:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH/RFC 0/3] ath5k: add driver tracepoints From: Johannes Berg To: Bruno Randolf Cc: ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, Bob Copeland , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <201007201411.51259.br1@einfach.org> References: <1279395336-856-1-git-send-email-me@bobcopeland.com> <201007201411.51259.br1@einfach.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:54:19 +0200 Message-ID: <1279612459.3706.1.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 14:11 +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > hmm, this is really nice stuff, but i'm not sure what to do on embedded boards > where we don't have python or where it's not possible to use tracing in > general due to (low) performance reasons err, tracing has much better performance than printk, and you can get the trace into a file that you can analyse offline on a "real" machine. No need for python on the board, and tracing improves performance over printk. johannes