|From:||Theodore Tso <tytso-AT-mit.edu>|
|To:||Oleg Nesterov <oleg-AT-redhat.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2|
|Date:||Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:44:17 -0400|
|Cc:||linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt-AT-goodmis.org>, "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche-AT-redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>, utrace-devel-AT-redhat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan-AT-gmail.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>|
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Yes, ptrace-over-utrace needs more work. But your message looks as if > utrace core is buggy, imho this is a bit unfair ;) > > As Roland said, ptrace-over-utrace is not ready yet. If you mean that > utrace core should not be merged alone - this is another story. > > But personally I understand why Roland sends utrace core before changing > ptrace. Yes, but if it's going to be merged this during 2.6.x cycle, we need to have a user for the kernel interface along with the new kernel interface. This is true for any body trying to add some new infrastructure to the kernel; you have to have an in-tree user of said interface. I mean, if some device manufacturer were to go to Red Hat's kernel team, and say, "we need this interface for our uber expensive RDMA interface card", and there was no in-kernel user for the interface, we know what Red Hat would tell that device manufacturer, right? So why is the SystemTap team trying to get an exception for utrace? It just seems a little hypocritical. So what about the ftrace user of utrace? Is that ready to be merged? - Ted
Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds