Re: [RFC/Requirements/Design] h/w error reporting

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 15:43 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 09:40 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > The second option was agreed upon by myself, Thomas, Frederic, and
> > Peter, and it was OK'd by Linus.
> > 
> > What do you think about it? 
> 
> I would still like to see lots more detail before we commit to anything,

Keeping it out of tree means we don't commit to anything :-)

> sure the second way is the only way out, but you still need to come up
> with a trace data format and a control ABI.

Great! Let's start with that then. Could you list some of the basic
needs of perf? And then I can start talking about what I need for
ftrace, and we also should keep in mind things we may want to do in the
future.

> 
> Without those its pretty pointless to even talk about stuff.

Agreed, but we really do want to find a way out, thus lets start the
conversation. Basically, start from square one. We now have both ftrace
and perf, and we know what we need. We can start working on something
with both in mind, and perhaps keeping track of other things.

I added Mathieu too. I know to you LTTng does not exist, but he can at
least give ideas about something we may not have thought about and may
want to do in the future.

-- Steve



--
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/