Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751440AbWIREDf (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:03:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751447AbWIREDf (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:03:35 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:24593 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751440AbWIREDe (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:03:34 -0400 Message-ID: <450E1F6F.7040401@opersys.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:24:15 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; 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: Theodore Tso , Ingo Molnar , Karim Yaghmour , Nicholas Miell , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Roman Zippel , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Mathieu Desnoyers , Christoph Hellwig , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: tracepoint maintainance models References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <1158524390.2471.49.camel@entropy> <20060917230623.GD8791@elte.hu> <450DEEA5.7080808@opersys.com> <20060918005624.GA30835@elte.hu> <450DFFC8.5080005@opersys.com> <20060918033027.GB11894@elte.hu> <20060918035216.GF9049@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20060918035216.GF9049@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1268 Lines: 28 Theodore Tso wrote: > I *think* what Karim is trying to claim is that LTT also has some > dynamic capabilities, and isn't a pure static tracing system. But if > that's the case, I don't understand why LTT and SystemTap can't just > merge and play nice together.... That's been the thrust of my intervention here. There is already a great deal of common ground between the respective teams. There are historical "incidents", if we want to call them as such, which prompted such separation. There is a common desire of interfacing, and much talk has been done on the topic. From my point of view, I think it's fair to say that the SystemTap folks have been particularly wary of interfacing with ltt based mainly on its controversial heritage. If the signal *and* endorsement from kernel developers is that SystemTap and LTTng should "play nice together", then, I think, everything is in place to accelerate that. Karim -- President / Opersys Inc. Embedded Linux Training and Expertise www.opersys.com / 1.866.677.4546 - 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/