This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
- From: Karim Yaghmour <karim at opersys dot com>
- To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh at google dot com>
- Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at polymtl dot ca>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, Paul Mundt <lethal at linux-sh dot org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Jes Sorensen <jes at sgi dot com>, Andrew Morton <akpm at osdl dot org>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi at us dot ibm dot com>, Richard J Moore <richardj_moore at uk dot ibm dot com>, Michel Dagenais <michel dot dagenais at polymtl dot ca>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead dot org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh at suse dot de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, William Cohen <wcohen at redhat dot com>, ltt-dev at shafik dot org, systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:23:01 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers
- Organization: Opersys inc.
- References: <20060918234502.GA197@Krystal> <20060919081124.GA30394@elte.hu> <451008AC.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: karim at opersys dot com
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Why don't we just copy the whole damned function somewhere else, and
> make an instrumented copy (as a kernel module)?
If you're going to go with that, then why not just use a comment-based
markup? Then your alternate copy gets to be generated from the same
codebase. It also solves the inherent problem of decided on whether
a macro-based markup is far too intrusive, since you can mildly allow
yourself more verbosity in a comment. Not only that, but if it's
comment-based, it's even forseable, though maybe not desirable, than
*everything* that deals with this type of markup be maintained out
of tree (i.e. scripts generating alternate functions and all.)