Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Paul Mundt wrote:
>> subjective, LTT proved that this was a problem regarding general
>> code-level intrusiveness when the number of tracepoints in relatively
>> close locality started piling up based on what people considered
>> arbitrarily useful, and LTTng doesn't appear to do anything to address
>> this.
> 
> "LTT proved that ..." what are you talking about? Have you noticed
> the posting earlier regarding the fact that the ltt tracepoints did
> not change over a 5 year span? **five** years ... Where do you get
> this claim that ltt trace points "started piling up"? Have a look
> at figure 2 of this article and let me know exactly which of those
> tracepoints are actually a problem to you:

Because other people have tried to use LTT for additional projects,
but said projects haven't been integrated into LTT. In other words,
just because *you* haven't added those, doesn't mean someone else
won't try and do it later, if LTT was integrated.

Nice try!

Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux