On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 12:32 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > There are currently no trace_mark() sites in the kernel that I'm aware > > of (except for the scheduler :-/, and those should be converted to > > tracepoints ASAP). > > > > Andrew raised the whole point about trace_mark() generating an > > user-visible interface and thus it should be stable, and I agree with > > that. > > > > What that means is that trace_mark() can only be used for really stable > > points. > > > > This in turn means we might as well use trace points. > > > > Which allows for the conclusion that trace_mark() is not needed and > > could be removed from the kernel. > > > > However - it might be handy for ad-hoc debugging purposes that never see > > the light of day (linus' git tree in this case). So on those grounds one > > could argue against removing trace_mark > > But trace_mark() is so wonderful.
I guess tastes differ... > Can't we just declare the tracemarks > as a non-stable interface? > > Perhaps add an unstable_trace_mark() to make it clear. At the very least it would need its own output channel. But I'm afraid this will be KS material. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
