Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:00:47 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:51 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > And what I did is "b". I wasn't going to defend anybody else's > choice of tracepoints. Those who were using ltt for its designated > purpose -- allowing normal users and developers to get an accurate > view of the behavior of their system -- were very happy with it. > > You want to know who was unhappy with using it: kernel developers. > It just wasn't geared for them. Which goes back to my earlier > arguments ...
What do you want to prove with this rant ? Simply the fact that your view of tracing is not matching the view of others. Nothing else.
You just made it clear, that your solution was and still is targeted on one single user group.
Nobody is opposing instrumentation per se, we just need to figure out a good solution suitable for endusers, kernel developers, debug fetishists ... without splattering ten different tracers all across the kernel source.
The way to a solid kernel instrumentation is definitely not by pushing a single purpose solution in, which we have to _maintain_ for a long time without being convinced that it is the _best_ technical solution we can have right now.
tglx
- 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/
| |