[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjecttracing - consensus building insteat of dogfights

I've been half-way through reading this thread after returning, and I must
say I'm rather annoyed that 80% of it is just Roman vs Ingo and Karim vs
Jes dogfights that run in circles. Let's try to find some majority optinion
and plans to move forward:

*) so far everyone but Roman seems to agree we want to support dynamic
tracing as an integral part of the tracing framework
*) most people seem to agree that we want some form of in-source annotation
instead of just external probes

so let's build on this rough consensus and decide on the next steps before
fighting the hard battels. I think those important steps are:

1) review and improve the lttng core tracing engine (without static traces
so far) and get it into mergeable shape. Make sure it works nicely
from *probe dynamic tracing handlers.
2) find a nice syntax for in-source tracing annotations, and implement a
backend for it using lttng and *probes.

We can fight the hard fight whether we want real static tracing and how
many annotations of what form were after we have those important building
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: 2006-09-19 15:02    [W:0.178 / U:2.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site