Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 12:44:13 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > It is currently used as an instrumentation infrastructure for the LTTng
> > > tracer at IBM, Google, Autodesk, Sony, MontaVista and deployed in
> > > WindRiver products.  The SystemTAP project also plan to use this type of
> > > infrastructure to trace sites hard to instrument. The Linux Kernel
> > > Markers has the support of Frank C. Eigler, author of their current
> > > marker alternative (which he wishes to drop in order to adopt the
> > > markers infrastructure as soon as it hits mainline).
> > 
> > All of the above don't use mainline kernels.
> 
> That's because they have to add a markers patch!

I meant they use very old kernels. Their experiences don't apply
to mainline bitrottyness.

> > That doesn't constitute using it.
> 
> Andi, there was a huge amount of discussion about all this in September last
> year (subjects: *markers* and *LTTng*). The outcome of all that was, I
> believe, that the kernel should have a static marker infrastructure.

I have no problem with that in principle; just some doubts about
the current proposed implementation: in particular its complexity.
And also I think when something is merged it should have some users in tree.

-Andi

-
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/