[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.

President / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise / 1.866.677.4546
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-18 06:07    [W:0.096 / U:3.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site