Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751199AbWINLgK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:36:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751208AbWINLgK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:36:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33760 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199AbWINLgJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:36:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:27:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 Message-ID: <20060914112718.GA7065@elte.hu> References: <20060914033826.GA2194@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060914033826.GA2194@Krystal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.9 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.9 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.5 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 951 Lines: 22 * Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Following an advice Christoph gave me this summer, submitting a > smaller, easier to review patch should make everybody happier. Here is > a stripped down version of LTTng : I removed everything that would > make the code review reluctant (especially kernel instrumentation and > kernel state dump module). I plan to release this "core" version every > few LTTng releases and post it to LKML. > > Comments and reviews are very welcome. i have one very fundamental question: why should we do this source-intrusive method of adding tracepoints instead of the dynamic, unintrusive (and thus zero-overhead) KProbes+SystemTap method? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/