Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932293AbWIOVcv (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:32:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932294AbWIOVcv (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:32:51 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:63243 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932293AbWIOVcu (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:32:50 -0400 Message-ID: <450B1E60.7030303@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:42:56 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jrs@us.ibm.com CC: Mathieu Desnoyers , Alan Cox , Roman Zippel , Tim Bird , Ingo Molnar , 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 References: <20060914171320.GB1105@elte.hu> <20060914181557.GA22469@elte.hu> <4509B03A.3070504@am.sony.com> <1158320406.29932.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1158323938.29932.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1158327696.29932.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <450AEC92.7090409@us.ibm.com> <20060915194937.GA7133@Krystal> <450B1309.9020800@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <450B1309.9020800@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1309 Lines: 27 Jose R. Santos wrote: > I don't really care which method is used as long as its the right tool > for the job. I see several idea from LTT that could be integrated into > SystemTap in order to make it a one stop solution for both dynamic and > static tracing. Would you care to elaborate why you think having > separate projects is a better solution? We don't -- at least *I* wouldn't care, but I'm not the current maintainer. ltt's usefulness has always been in the digested information it can present to the user. The kernel patching part was a necessary evil. What I object to is the depiction of dynamic tracing as solving the need for static markup. I doesn't, and, therefore, does not currently constitute an adequate substitute for ltt's patches. If someone else can actually provide ltt with the events and surround detail (timestamping and all) it needs while still providing the same performance we currently get out of the current ltt patches, then I'd say more power to them -- the current developers may how more relevant things to say. Karim - 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/