Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation | | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | | Date | Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:35:24 +0100 |
| |
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 04:26 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes: > > > [...] > > Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP > > and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be > > inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really is an crap name). > > At one point ubp+uprobes were one piece. They were separated on the > suspicion that lkml would like them that way.
Right, good thinking, that way we can use ubp without having to use utrace ;-)
> > Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to > > use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting. > > Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the > layering relationship of these pieces. utrace underlies uprobes and > other process manipulation functionality, present and future.
Why, utrace doesn't at all look to bring a fundamental contribution to all that. If there's a proper kernel interface to install probes on userspace code (ubp seems to be mostly that) then I can use perf/ftrace to do the rest of the state management, no need to use utrace there.
You can hardly force me to use utrace there, can you?
|  |