|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
|| ||Diego Calleja <diegocg-AT-gmail.com> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2 |
|| ||Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:17:48 +0100|
|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche-AT-redhat.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland-AT-redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>, utrace-devel-AT-redhat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>|
|| ||Article, Thread
* Diego Calleja <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sábado 21 Marzo 2009 16:45:01 Ingo Molnar escribió:
> > The main issue i see is that no kernel developer i work with on a
> > daily basis uses SystemTap - and i work with a lot of people. Yes, i
> > could perhaps name two or three people from lkml using it, but its
> > average penetration amongst kernel folks is essentially zero.
> What about userspace developers? People always talks of systemtap
> as a kernel thing, but my (humble) impression is that kernel
> hackers don't seem to need it that much (maybe for the same
> reasons they didn't a kernel debugger ;), but userspace developers
> do. There're many userspace projects that offer optional compile
> options to enable dtrace probes (some people like apple even ship
> executables of python, perl and ruby with probes by default).
> There're several firefox hackers that switched to dtrace-capable
> debug javashit code in ways they weren't able in linux or windows.
> In my humble opinion a better development environment for linux
> userspace programmers is way more important than whether kernel
> hackers like systemtap or not. So maybe the discussion should be
> less about "does it help kernel hackers?" and more about "does it
> help userspace hackers?". My 2¢...
Well, i consider kernel development to be just another form of
software development, so i dont subscribe to the view that it is
intrinsically different. (Yes, the kernel has many unique aspects -
but most software projects have unique aspects.)
In terms of development methodology and tools, in fact i claim that
the kernel workflow and style of development can be applied to most
user-space software projects with great success.
So ... if a new development tool is apparently not (yet?) suited to
a very large and sanely developed software project like the Linux
kernel, i dont take that as an encouraging sign.
Also, there's practical aspects: the kernel is what we know best so
if we can make it work well for the kernel, hopes are that other
large projects can use it too. If we _only_ make the tool good for
non-kernel purposes, who else will fix it for the kernel? The
icentive to fix it for the kernel will be significantly lower.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
to post comments)