Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 04:26 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > [...]
> > Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
> > and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
> > inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really is an crap name).
> 
> At one point ubp+uprobes were one piece.  They were separated on the
> suspicion that lkml would like them that way.

Right, good thinking, that way we can use ubp without having to use
utrace ;-)

> > Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to
> > use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting.
> 
> Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the
> layering relationship of these pieces.  utrace underlies uprobes and
> other process manipulation functionality, present and future.

Why, utrace doesn't at all look to bring a fundamental contribution to
all that. If there's a proper kernel interface to install probes on
userspace code (ubp seems to be mostly that) then I can use perf/ftrace
to do the rest of the state management, no need to use utrace there.

You can hardly force me to use utrace there, can you?

--
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/