> > Unless you know another way to have dynamic tracing/diagnostic capability > without recompiling the kernel? > > there needs to be a balance. > random print's don't add diagnostic capability. well placed print's do. > if you put random dev_dbg()'s everywhere, instead you make the > diagnostic capability completely zero. > > and if something is really critical, put a trace point there, not a print...
OK. That definitely makes sense, thx. Will let you know once I have the perf impact of dynamic debug. One of the things we may also need is related to "binary traces" (For example to be able to trace the audio streams at the various points in the system, or complex structure value dumps, where text traces are way too intrusive). On other OSs, I used to have binary dumps of any structures (dynamically controlled), with post processing to extract the structure content. Is there a plan to have such mechanism in the kernel? Any standard API which could be routed to PTI based logging? Regards, Sylvain --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company) Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris, 92196 Meudon Cedex, France Registration Number: 302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE Capital: 4,572,000 Euros This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. _______________________________________________ Meego-kernel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-kernel
