On Sun, 2009-02-22 at 07:24 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > 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. Not so. In both cases the regular stuff (NMI trace, OOPS, function/graph/sched trace, etc) is not enough and you wish to augment its output. > 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. Right, for dumb tracers that's true I suppose, however any high-bandwidth tracer will try to avoid putting silly ASCII strings in and will therefore need to write more glue code. Which reduces these default thingies to printk() level debugging. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
