- Original Message -
> From: "Steven Rostedt"
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers"
> Cc: "LKML" , "Andrew Morton"
> , "Javi Merino"
> , "David Howells" , "Ingo Molnar"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 5:06:
On Tue, 6 May 2014 20:53:41 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > I do plan on adding more documentation to this to stress that this
> > should be done like this. But hey, we're kernel developers, we should
> > be responsible enough to not require the hand holding.
>
> I like your optimism.
- Original Message -
> From: "Steven Rostedt"
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers"
> Cc: "LKML" , "Andrew Morton"
> , "Javi Merino"
> , "David Howells" , "Ingo Molnar"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 3:48:
On Tue, 6 May 2014 19:35:32 + (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I'm OK with the intend, however there seems to be two means to achieve
> this, and I'm not sure the proposed solution is safe.
I do plan on adding more documentation to this to stress that this
should be done like this. But
- Original Message -
> From: "Steven Rostedt"
> To: "LKML"
> Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Mathieu Desnoyers"
> , "Javi Merino"
> , "David Howells" , "Ingo Molnar"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 9:44:
There are some code paths in the kernel that need to do some preparations
before it calls a tracepoint. As that code is worthless overhead when
the tracepoint is not enabled, it would be prudent to have that code
only run when the tracepoint is active. To accomplish this, all tracepoints
now get
6 matches
Mail list logo