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

Ingo Molnar
2006-09-17T21:04:58Z

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

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar 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),
>
> Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not
> "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".'

I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent
such a simple sentence. Let me quote the full paragraph of what i said:

> you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point
> we were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm
> happy to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely
> usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet
> that i disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers?

this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for
static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for
_dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static
tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static
markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the
"tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i
explain it in more detail?

Ingo