Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:24:15 -0400 | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |