Re: [ANNOUNCE] New utility: 'trace'

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:53:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 14:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, trace_printk() is a pure debug interface, solely meant for the edit
> > > + reboot cycle.
> > 
> > So why prevent from making it even more handy?
> > 
> > 
> > > If you want anything more than that we've got tracepoints. The rule up
> > > until now has been to never merge a trace_printk() user.
> > 
> > Sure, that doesn't change the core idea of trace_prink(): none of them must
> > be merged. That new event interface would just make private uses of trace_printk()
> > more convenient. 
> 
> I don't get it, if you don't want it, why put it there in the first
> place?
> 
> I've never found myself thinking, oh damn, I didn't want to see that
> one!, only damn, I should have added more :-)


Hehe :)

Yeah I have a strange workflow. I'm working on that CPU isolation thing
and I have dozens of trace_printk all over the place for tons of
things. And everytime I remove one to unwind some output or to focus
on another one, I often have to restore it later because I need it
again. Usually I even just comment it out instead of removing it.

If I could make this dynamically on a per line filtering, or sometimes on
a per file granularity (as both are equally often the case for me), I would
probably win some time.

I just don't know how many developers have a similar workflow than mine.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/