Re: Human readable output for function return tracer

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

2008/11/25 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
>> > Do you agree with "full function tracer" (since we hook now on the
>> > two sides)?
>>
>> "full function tracer" sounds a bit funny and quirky. How about
>> "function call tracer"? Versus the "function tracer" or "function
>> entry tracer" which is the lighter variant - both in name and in
>> overhead. So we'd have:
>>
>>  # cat /debug/tracing/available_tracers
>>  mmiotrace wakeup irqsoff function function-call sysprof sched_switch initcall nop
>>
>> note how intuitive it is: "function-call" is 'more' than just the
>> plain function-tracer. It also expresses its main property: it
>> traces the full call, entry and exit and return code as well.
>
> another similar naming would be: the "function-graph" tracer.
> function-callgraph would be too long.
>
> i think "function-call" is the best of all - relatively short and
> expressive.
>
>        Ingo
>

Ok. No problem for me. But if ftrace is not renamed to ftrace-entry, I
think that it will be
confusing...