Hi,
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It affects all tracers: SystemTap/LKST has to adapt to such a scheme
> too, because currently there's no markup scheme in the kernel. So this
> is not something 'against' LTT, but something /for/ a unified landscape
> of tracers. (and as i mentioned it before, it will be easy for you to
> offer a simple "LTT speedup patch", which distros and the upstream
> kernel can consider separately. But it must be /optional/.)
Out of curiosity: How exactly would it hurt this unifiation, if you left
some of the implementation details simply to the archs?
> So far i have not seen any real arguments against this simple but
> fundamental upstream requirement which i pointed out for v0.1 already.
It's funny, after reality sets in, I'll get exactly what I asked for in
the first place, now I only have to figure out a way to do this without
getting insulted by almost everyone...
bye, Roman
-
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]
