* Karim Yaghmour <[email protected]> wrote:
> > the tracebuffer management portion of LTT is better than the hacks
> > in SystemTap, and that LTT's visualization tools are better (for
> > example they do exist :-) - so clearly there's synergy possible.
>
> Great, because I believe all those involved would like to see this
> happen. I personally am convinced that none of those involved want to
> continue wasting their time in parallel.
a reasonable compromise for me would be what i suggested a few mails
ago:
nor do i reject all of LTT: as i said before i like the tools, and i
think its collection of trace events should be turned into systemtap
markups and scripts. Furthermore, it's ringbuffer implementation looks
better. So as far as the user is concerned, LTT could (and should) live
on with full capabilities, but with this crutial difference in how it
interfaces to the kernel source code.
i.e. could you try to just give SystemTap a chance and attempt to
integrate a portion of LTT with it ... that shares more of the
infrastructure and we'd obviously only need "one" markup variant, and
would have full markup (removal-) flexibility. I'll try to help djprobes
as much as possible. Hm?
Ingo
-
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]
