From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755155AbYKRRAw@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755155AbYKRRAw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:00:52 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754669AbYKRRAP
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:00:15 -0500
Received: from mail-qy0-f11.google.com ([209.85.221.11]:58285 "EHLO
	mail-qy0-f11.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754878AbYKRRAM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:00:12 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=i5F/Od6R/rU8p22okm8Qyl8QrXwAPwrRWJVIrc3baiRcMpj0ecI+jeC3ovUKqUZDs0
         +tIUrdF4QMbY3cA1UOADCtTBNoAyCjg5Qmfvd2L6md44+/6CuiU+72SRmYjabDgSiml5
         QA5V36n8ZoPlFVf2h2nRd+4vdCQb4F53VieL4=
Message-ID: <c62985530811180900k8687deye092862bd04f467c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:00:09 +0100
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?=" <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
       "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <c62985530811180858u397fbac8h63f61b6d816abb46@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20081117084923.GD28786@elte.hu>
	 <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811181006010.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20081118151326.GH30358@elte.hu>
	 <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811181020350.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <20081118155045.GJ30358@elte.hu>
	 <c62985530811180831n132ed6dep77aa2684ff59861@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20081118164019.GA18620@elte.hu>
	 <c62985530811180847w30f5724dvb6dff8fd7f4913de@mail.gmail.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811181151010.15003@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	 <c62985530811180858u397fbac8h63f61b6d816abb46@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2008/11/18 Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>:
> 2008/11/18 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>:
>> How about a compromise, start off the patch series getting it working with
>> task struct static array, and then finish the series with the dynamic
>> array.
>>
>> This is my development model, because it lets me know where the bugs are
>> better. If we find some strange bug, this can help pin point via a bisect
>> if the bug is with the general code, or with the use of a dynamic array.
>>
>> Just my preference ;-)
>
>
> Ooh. I first agreed with Ingo's arguments about the fact that distros
> can enable it whithout worrying.
> But as I read your message, I guess that would be better to start with
> static arrays to better find the bugs,
> state by state...
>
> Ingo, what do you think?
>

And then a last state with dynamic arrays...