Re: tracepoint maintainance models

[Karim Yaghmour]

Theodore Tso wrote:
> I *think* what Karim is trying to claim is that LTT also has some
> dynamic capabilities, and isn't a pure static tracing system.  But if
> that's the case, I don't understand why LTT and SystemTap can't just
> merge and play nice together....

That's been the thrust of my intervention here. There is already a
great deal of common ground between the respective teams. There are
historical "incidents", if we want to call them as such, which
prompted such separation. There is a common desire of interfacing,
and much talk has been done on the topic. From my point of view,
I think it's fair to say that the SystemTap folks have been
particularly wary of interfacing with ltt based mainly on its
controversial heritage. If the signal *and* endorsement from kernel
developers is that SystemTap and LTTng should "play nice together",
then, I think, everything is in place to accelerate that.

Karim
-- 
President  / Opersys Inc.
Embedded Linux Training and Expertise
www.opersys.com  /  1.866.677.4546
-
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/