Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:58:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:58:28 -0500 Received: from d06lmsgate.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.1]:52679 "EHLO d06lmsgate.uk.ibm.COM") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:58:20 -0500 From: richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMGB To: Andi Kleen cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Paul Jakma , Michael Rothwell , Christoph Rohland , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <80256997.00130DB4.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:34:04 +0000 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: >I think using dprobes for collecting information is ok, but when you want >to do actual actions with it (not only using it as a debugger) IMHO it >is better to patch and recompile the kernel. I absolutely agree. The only time I ever used this capability was to modify a proprietary binary, for which I did not have the source, so that I could prove to the owner what needed fixing. >As far as I can see GKHI is overkill for dprobes alone, the existing >notifier lists would be sufficient because dprobes does not hook into any >performance critical paths. Again, I agree. My intent is that the RAS guys might club together - then GKHI make much more sense. Richard Moore - RAS Project Lead - Linux Technology Centre (PISC). http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux Office: (+44) (0)1962-817072, Mobile: (+44) (0)7768-298183 IBM UK Ltd, MP135 Galileo Centre, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN, UK - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/