Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932235AbWIPABv (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:01:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932240AbWIPABv (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:01:51 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:37045 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932235AbWIPABu (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:01:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:53:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Karim Yaghmour Cc: "Jose R. Santos" , Mathieu Desnoyers , Roman Zippel , Andrew Morton , tglx@linutronix.de, Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 Message-ID: <20060915235317.GA29929@elte.hu> References: <20060915111644.c857b2cf.akpm@osdl.org> <20060915181907.GB17581@elte.hu> <20060915200559.GB30459@elte.hu> <20060915202233.GA23318@Krystal> <450B164B.7090404@us.ibm.com> <20060915220345.GC12789@elte.hu> <450B29FB.7000301@opersys.com> <20060915224338.GA22126@elte.hu> <450B382C.9070202@opersys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <450B382C.9070202@opersys.com> 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: 1471 Lines: 33 * Karim Yaghmour wrote: > > the tracebuffer management portion of LTT is better than the hacks > > in SystemTap, and that LTT's visualization tools are better (for > > example they do exist :-) - so clearly there's synergy possible. > > Great, because I believe all those involved would like to see this > happen. I personally am convinced that none of those involved want to > continue wasting their time in parallel. a reasonable compromise for me would be what i suggested a few mails ago: nor do i reject all of LTT: as i said before i like the tools, and i think its collection of trace events should be turned into systemtap markups and scripts. Furthermore, it's ringbuffer implementation looks better. So as far as the user is concerned, LTT could (and should) live on with full capabilities, but with this crutial difference in how it interfaces to the kernel source code. i.e. could you try to just give SystemTap a chance and attempt to integrate a portion of LTT with it ... that shares more of the infrastructure and we'd obviously only need "one" markup variant, and would have full markup (removal-) flexibility. I'll try to help djprobes as much as possible. Hm? 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/