From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752585AbYKSHf2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:35:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751451AbYKSHfS (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:35:18 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f11.google.com ([209.85.221.11]:42785 "EHLO mail-qy0-f11.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751383AbYKSHfR (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:35:17 -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=ZEvNdrLE/l5pCBrbmEw9vEAN5b2SB64SlFWnfV51NWHGSZgPZGlrVSBiO5XYoo0A/e qgN6wO7DX4zUr/XxvHzjI7OiUXVTNnie9brvzz53aU4iigtghmbZjFzbiqaJXskNZ6X1 A+aZ24gElGNBUsA/+byRM5hnPWyU4/lhR4vcA= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:35:15 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?=" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tracing/function-return-tracer: add the overrun field Cc: "Steven Rostedt" , "Linux Kernel" In-Reply-To: <20081118210344.GC11490@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20081118084755.GK17838@elte.hu> <20081118145154.GC30358@elte.hu> <20081118151326.GH30358@elte.hu> <20081118155045.GJ30358@elte.hu> <20081118164019.GA18620@elte.hu> <20081118210344.GC11490@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2008/11/18 Ingo Molnar : > it's your call really, either way is fine as long as the end result > works! :-) > > Generally it's indeed much easier to do as small steps as possible, > and to validate every step in practice. > > Ingo > That's right, I will start with a static array first and end with dynamic allocation. I'm not sure if it will be ready for merge window of 2.6.29 but that doesn't really matter. > hey, look at the bright side of it: whichever variant you pick, if it > goes wrong, you'll always have someone else to blame for that > unbelievably stupid suggestion ;-) > > Ingo > Hehe! Indeed :-)