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

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > The foremost issue is still that there is only limited kprobes 
> > support.
> 
> > The main issue in supporting static tracers are the tracepoints and so 
> > far I haven't seen any convincing proof that the maintainance overhead 
> > of dynamic and static tracepoints has to be significantly different.
> 
> to both points i (and others) already replied in great detail - please 
> follow up on them. (I can quote message-IDs if you cannot find them.)

What you basically tell me is (rephrased to make it more clear): Implement 
kprobes support or fuck off! You make it very clear, that you're unwilling 
to support static tracers even to point to make _any_ static trace support 
impossible. It's impossible to discuss this with you, because you're 
absolutely unwilling to make any concessions. What am I supposed to do 
than it's very clear to me, that you don't want to make any compromise 
anyway? You leave me _nothing_ to work with, that's the main reason I 
leave such things unanswered. AFAICT there is nothing I can do about that 
than just repeating what I told you already anyway and you'll continue to 
ignore it and I'm sick and tired of it.

bye, Roman
-
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/