Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:45:51 +0530 | From | Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <> | Subject | Re: linux-next: add utrace tree |
| |
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Ingo,
> Note, i'm not yet convinced that this (and the rest: uprobes and systemtap, > etc.) can go uptream in its present form.
Agreed, uprobes is still not upstream ready -- it was an RFC. We are working through the comments there to get it ready for merger.
> IMHO the far more important thing to address beyond formalities and workflow > cleanliness are the (many) technical observations and objections offered by > Peter Zijstra on lkml. Not just the git history but also the abstractions and > concepts are messy and should be reworked IMO, and also good and working perf > events integration should be achieved, etc.
I think Oleg addressed most of Peter's concerns on utrace when the ptrace/utrace patchset was reposted.
Perf integration with uprobes will be done and discussions have started with Masami and Frederic. There are a couple of fundamental technical aspects (XOL vma vs. emulation; breakpoint insertion through CoW and not through quiesce) that need resolution.
> The fact that there's a well established upstream workflow for instrumentation > patches, which is being routed around by the utrace/uprobes/systemtap code > here is not a good sign in terms of reaching a good upstream solution. Lets > hope it works out well though.
Agreed.
On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed.
Stephen, To exercise ptrace/utrace, it would be very useful if you pulled in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frob/linux-2.6-utrace.git branch utrace-ptrace
instead of 'master'.
Thanks, Ananth
| |