Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
In this case, that's not the purpose; DTrace is free software, not proprietary software, even though the license isn't compatible. Furthermore SystemTap could use the same hooks.
On DTrace envy
Posted Aug 8, 2007 19:30 UTC (Wed) by ahl (guest, #40497)
Posted Aug 9, 2007 11:47 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
I don't want to sound too humbugish about attribution, but that was my point with "(remember, they're both free software licences)" from my point b) (get linux devs to agree CDDLed Dtrace modules are ok). Any points about potential odd-standards are implied in that (particularly as I had already referred to proprietary modules earlier in my post, highlighted in bold too to make it obvious..).
Posted Aug 9, 2007 19:55 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510)
I wonder if Linus et al. would object to hooks for an open source component, and, if they did, what the grounds for those objections would be.
That sort of thing has always met a lot of resistance. Currently any in-kernel API can be changed as long as you take care to fix up all the in-tree users. Obviously that makes certain kinds of changes much easier.
And having in-tree users for API's makes those API's easier to understand and maintain.
Posted Aug 8, 2007 21:30 UTC (Wed) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
Of course if it's the case that the in-kernel hooks can be made generic between SystemTap (et.al.) and DTrace, then it doesn't matter anyway.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds