Re: [linuxtools-dev] Modeled state in TMF/LTTng

[Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> I would rather use a generic viewer with the state machine declared
> into a XML like file. There are few caveat to do it in a generic way,
> because there are many types of events. For example, kernel.sched_schedule
> from lttng has prev_pid and next_pid, and hence changes the state of two
> processes. It's different than entry/exit event, which affect only
> the state of one state machine. But it would provides much more
> flexibility than static machine state definition at compile time!

Having code does not prevent extensibility. It is possible to have python code or even Java or C code compiled or JIT-compiled and loaded dynamically. The real question is what proportion of state updating events can have their state updates defined through simple declarations versus those so complex that code is the better way to go.