Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Call prepare_ftrace_return by registers

["Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

2008/11/13 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
> hm, function-exit is a quite bad name i think that tells nothing to
> the user. I like "function-cost tracer" because that tells the user
> what it's all about in the end.
>
> Or perhaps we could name it the "callgraph" tracer? (as opposed to the
> simpler function tracer which traces function entries) Note that we
> could use the output to build function call coverage graphs.


But you can build a call graph with the function tracer, that what
does the script draw_trace.py
in a bit loosely way for example.
IMHO, function cost measurement or call graphs are particular uses
that can be made of this engine.
You can also use it to trace function return values for example.

The general sense of this is more about return hooking.
But....
Perhaps defining it as a "return" tracer is not easy to understand at
a first sight and could bring developpers
on misinterpretation (sorry does this word exist?).

So perhaps naming it by thinking on the purpose it could be use at
most would be better that its "general" or "potential"
purpose. I don't know...

> It definitely must convey the idea that this is a more capable (and
> also more expensive) form of function tracing.
>
>        Ingo
>


If we convey/consider it on a sight where it is capable on several
things, so a more generic name should be chosen.