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

[Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>]

Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> You just made it clear, that your solution was and still is targeted on
> one single user group.

And that was part of my point. Every time I got in a debate on lkml
regarding ltt, there were crowds screaming in horror at the possibility
of trace points everywhere.

> Nobody is opposing instrumentation per se, we just need to figure out a
> good solution suitable for endusers, kernel developers, debug
> fetishists ... without splattering ten different tracers all across the
> kernel source.

I agree entirely.

> The way to a solid kernel instrumentation is definitely not by pushing a
> single purpose solution in, which we have to _maintain_ for a long time
> without being convinced that it is the _best_ technical solution we can
> have right now.

I think we're in full agreement. A solid kernel instrumentation mechanism
is exactly what is needed. The whole point of posting the ltt stuff on
the lkml is exactly to get the best technical solution. The ltt developers
are more than happy to take suggestions as to how to achieve this.

Karim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/