Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

ELC/LFCS2009: A tale of two panels

Posted Apr 15, 2009 22:01 UTC (Wed) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059)
In reply to: ELC/LFCS2009: A tale of two panels by jake
Parent article: ELC/LFCS2009: A tale of two panels

> I guess I am not sure if you are responding to the article or to Andrew here.

Your summary was accurate; this is more for Andrew and affected listeners.

> [...] I believe there were technical critiques of earlier submissions, yes?

That's true, but it's old history that doesn't justify using the
present tense in casually dismissing the code.

(Log in to post comments)

ELC/LFCS2009: A tale of two panels

Posted Apr 15, 2009 22:36 UTC (Wed) by fuhchee (subscriber, #40059) [Link]

> Your summary was accurate

Actually, it might not have been. I seem to recall someone on the panel
describing utrace as changing code "all over the kernel", which would be
different (and more mistaken). I guess once the LF video gets released,
our memories can be checked.

(I wish this sort of pedantry were not necessary, but words from important
people carry weight, so they had better be correct.)

ELC/LFCS2009: A tale of two panels

Posted Apr 18, 2009 12:01 UTC (Sat) by ebiederm (subscriber, #35028) [Link]

tracehook.h was one of the early parts of utrace that got merged.

utrace was merged in -mm for a while and the results were bad enough that it got yanked at least once.

As for the utrace ftracer. utrace predates ftrace by several years and it certainly did not exist before it was merged.