Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964857AbWIQPeF (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:34:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964819AbWIQPeF (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:34:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:33430 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964857AbWIQPeE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:34:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:25:27 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Thomas Gleixner , karim@opersys.com, Andrew Morton , Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , Mathieu Desnoyers , 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: <20060917152527.GC20225@elte.hu> References: <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu> <20060916230031.GB20180@elte.hu> <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 1730 Lines: 38 * Roman Zippel wrote: > Ingo, you happily still ignore my primary issues, how serious do you > expect me to take this? I did not ignore your new "primary issues", to the contrary. Please read my replies. To recap, your "primary issues" are: > The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes > support. > The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so > far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead > of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different. to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.) [ Or if it's not these two then let me know if i missed some important point - it's easy to miss a valid point in a sea of of replies. For example yesterday i have replied to 7 different issues _you_ raised, partly issues where you have questioned my credibility and competence, so i felt compelled to reply - but still you replied to none of those mails, only declaring them "secondary" in a passing reference. If they were secondary then why did you raise them in the first place? Or do you summarily concede all those points by not replying to them? And is there any guarantee that you will reply to any mails i write to you now? Will you declare them "secondary" too once the argument appears to turn unfavorable to your position? ] 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/