Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 10:51 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> And what I did is "b". I wasn't going to defend anybody else's
> choice of tracepoints. Those who were using ltt for its designated
> purpose -- allowing normal users and developers to get an accurate
> view of the behavior of their system -- were very happy with it.
> 
> You want to know who was unhappy with using it: kernel developers.
> It just wasn't geared for them. Which goes back to my earlier
> arguments ...

What do you want to prove with this rant ? Simply the fact that your
view of tracing is not matching the view of others. Nothing else.

You just made it clear, that your solution was and still is targeted on
one single user group.

Nobody is opposing instrumentation per se, we just need to figure out a
good solution suitable for endusers, kernel developers, debug
fetishists ... without splattering ten different tracers all across the
kernel source.

The way to a solid kernel instrumentation is definitely not by pushing a
single purpose solution in, which we have to _maintain_ for a long time
without being convinced that it is the _best_ technical solution we can
have right now.

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/