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

Jes Sorensen
2006-09-15T13:45:13Z

Roman Zippel wrote:
> The claim that these tracepoints would be maintainance burden is pretty
> much unproven so far. The static tracepoint haters just assume the kernel
> will be littered with thousands of unrelated tracepoints, where a good
> tracepoint would only document what already happens in that function, so
> that the tracepoint would be far from something obscure, which only few
> people could understand and maintain.

How do you propose to handle the case where two tracepoint clients wants
slightly different data from the same function? I saw this with LTT
users where someone wanted things in different places in schedule().

It *is* a nightmare to maintain.

You still haven't explained your argument about kprobes not being
generally available - where?

Cheers,
Jes