Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:37:49 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2 |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > > > If testing utrace against its main application requires installation > > > of a complete enterprise distro from a distro [...] > > > > This has *never* been a requirement. > > You guys are getting off a tangent. > > Let's go back to the post that started this all. > > > The thing is, utrace crashes in Fedora have dominated kerneloops.org > > for many months, so i'm not sure what to make of the idea of posting > > a 4000+ lines of core kernel code patchset on the last day of the > > development cycle, a posting that has carefully avoided the Cc:-ing > > of affected maintainers ;-) > > .. and dammit, I agree 100%. If utrace really shows up in _any_ > way on kerneloops.org, then I think THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION in this > thread is moot. > > I'm not going to take known-bad crap. It's that simple. Don't > bother posting it, don't bother discussing it, don't bother making > excuses for it.
The kerneloops stats on utrace crashes are way down currently, after that peak last fall. So i didnt want to suggest that it's known-broken now - i only wanted to point out that it's a known-risky area and that the submission of it should involve the affected maintainers/developers.
Regarding current stability, Roland, Frank, is the utrace patch in latest (today's) Fedora rawhide:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 176555 2009-01-08 05:42 linux-2.6-utrace.patch
a bug fixed equivalent of the utrace bits that crashed in the 2.6.26.3 kernel? In that case it is certainly known-good.
Or is it a slimmed-down version?
The ptrace bits and signoffs from Oleg and Alexey would certainly help (me) in trusting it. (I've Cc:-ed Oleg and Alexey)
The ftrace bits could certainly be staged to go in via the tracing tree (in .31 or so) after the utrace-core+ptrace bits went upstream.
Ingo
| |