lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: tracepoint maintainance models

    Theodore Tso wrote:
    > I *think* what Karim is trying to claim is that LTT also has some
    > dynamic capabilities, and isn't a pure static tracing system. But if
    > that's the case, I don't understand why LTT and SystemTap can't just
    > merge and play nice together....

    That's been the thrust of my intervention here. There is already a
    great deal of common ground between the respective teams. There are
    historical "incidents", if we want to call them as such, which
    prompted such separation. There is a common desire of interfacing,
    and much talk has been done on the topic. From my point of view,
    I think it's fair to say that the SystemTap folks have been
    particularly wary of interfacing with ltt based mainly on its
    controversial heritage. If the signal *and* endorsement from kernel
    developers is that SystemTap and LTTng should "play nice together",
    then, I think, everything is in place to accelerate that.

    Karim
    --
    President / Opersys Inc.
    Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
    www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-18 06:07    [W:2.497 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site