I don't see the issue. [LWN.net]

I don't see the issue.

Posted Sep 28, 2006 21:38 UTC (Thu) by jd (guest, #26381)
In reply to: You *can't* require an unchanging interface to changeable internals. by xoddam
Parent article: Tracing infrastructures

We already have vast numbers of wrappered calls to the LSM, so clearly people don't object THAT strenuously to wrappered calls in the code. (In fact, if the static tracing were implemented as a LSM module, you could even use the SAME wrappered calls and not need to add a damn thing that isn't already being maintained anyway.)

For that matter, we've a bazillion wrappered calls to BUG() and Torvalds-knows-what else. I see a far stronger cause for objecting to multiple independently-maintained wrappers to trivial, highly specific operations. It would seem to make much more sense to have a single meta-macro that allowed ANY of the assorted tools (lsm, static probes, kernel debugging info, jelly babies, etc) to use ANY of the points to make decisions, based on their specific requirements and the configuration at the time.

This would put all of the complexity into a single meta-macro (so eliminating almost all maintenance issues) and would provide a far wider range of sampleable points for future updates.

In general, added complexity is a Bad Thing. However, if by adding something, you provide a general, unified solution to N existing problems that previously needed N independent solutions, you have actually reduced complexity, which is a Good Thing.

I would not want LTT to be a mainstream kernel component if it actually added to the complexity of the system, but since I see no reason for complexity to be added and ways in which complexity can be removed, I believe LTT in the mainstream kernel is not only achievable but has the potential to cut a lot of crud out. To me, that would be wonderful.

(Log in to post comments)