Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200609151316_MC3-1-CB57-4BE@compuserve.com>
References: <200609151316_MC3-1-CB57-4BE@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:32:06 +0100
Message-Id: <1158345126.29932.122.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1078
Lines: 25

Ar Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 13:14 -0400, ysgrifennodd Chuck Ebbert:
> In-Reply-To: <1158331071.29932.63.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> > > $ grep KPROBES arch/*/Kconf*
> > > arch/i386/Kconfig:config KPROBES
> > > arch/ia64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
> > > arch/powerpc/Kconfig:config KPROBES
> > > arch/sparc64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
> > > arch/x86_64/Kconfig:config KPROBES
> >
> > Send patches. The fact nobody has them implemented on your platform
> > isn't a reason to implement something else, quite the reverse in fact.
> 
> Yes, but the point is: until that's done you can't claim kprobes is a
> valid tracing tool for everyone.

I can however claim that kprobes is what they should be implementing not
adding new large patches for another infrastructure whose author has
already said for dynamic stuff it is based on the same things.


-
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/