Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030237AbWISM7A (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:59:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030239AbWISM7A (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:59:00 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:46493 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030237AbWISM67 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:58:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:58:01 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Roman Zippel Cc: Ingo Molnar , Nicholas Miell , Paul Mundt , Karim Yaghmour , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , 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: tracing - consensus building insteat of dogfights Message-ID: <20060919125801.GA12815@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Roman Zippel , Ingo Molnar , Nicholas Miell , Paul Mundt , Karim Yaghmour , linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Jes Sorensen , Andrew Morton , Tom Zanussi , Richard J Moore , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Michel Dagenais , Mathieu Desnoyers , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , William Cohen , "Martin J. Bligh" References: <450D182B.9060300@opersys.com> <20060917112128.GA3170@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <20060917143623.GB15534@elte.hu> <1158524390.2471.49.camel@entropy> <20060917230623.GD8791@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-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1352 Lines: 28 I've been half-way through reading this thread after returning, and I must say I'm rather annoyed that 80% of it is just Roman vs Ingo and Karim vs Jes dogfights that run in circles. Let's try to find some majority optinion and plans to move forward: *) so far everyone but Roman seems to agree we want to support dynamic tracing as an integral part of the tracing framework *) most people seem to agree that we want some form of in-source annotation instead of just external probes so let's build on this rough consensus and decide on the next steps before fighting the hard battels. I think those important steps are: 1) review and improve the lttng core tracing engine (without static traces so far) and get it into mergeable shape. Make sure it works nicely from *probe dynamic tracing handlers. 2) find a nice syntax for in-source tracing annotations, and implement a backend for it using lttng and *probes. We can fight the hard fight whether we want real static tracing and how many annotations of what form were after we have those important building blocks. - 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/