Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

Ingo Molnar
2006-09-17T19:32:21Z

* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > [...] I think Ingo said that some "static tracepoints" (eg.
> > annotation) could be acceptable.
>
> No, he made it rather clear, that as far as possible he only wants
> dynamic annotations (e.g. via function attributes).

what you say is totally and utterly nonsensical misrepresentation of
what i have said. I always said: i support in-source annotations too (I
even suggested APIs how to do them), as long as they are not a total
_guaranteed_ set destined for static tracers, i.e. as long as they are
there for the purpose of dynamic tracers. I dont _care_ about static
annotations as long as they are there for dynamic tracers, because they
can be moved into scripts if they cause problems. But static annotations
for static tracers are much, much harder to remove. Please go on and
read my "tracepoint maintainance models" email:

Message-ID: <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu>

Ingo