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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20060915235317.GA29929@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:53:17 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com>
Cc:	"Jose R. Santos" <jrs@...ibm.com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

* Karim Yaghmour <karim@...rsys.com> wrote:

> > the tracebuffer management portion of LTT is better than the hacks 
> > in SystemTap, and that LTT's visualization tools are better (for 
> > example they do exist :-) - so clearly there's synergy possible.
> 
> Great, because I believe all those involved would like to see this 
> happen. I personally am convinced that none of those involved want to 
> continue wasting their time in parallel.

a reasonable compromise for me would be what i suggested a few mails 
ago:

 nor do i reject all of LTT: as i said before i like the tools, and i
 think its collection of trace events should be turned into systemtap
 markups and scripts. Furthermore, it's ringbuffer implementation looks
 better. So as far as the user is concerned, LTT could (and should) live
 on with full capabilities, but with this crutial difference in how it
 interfaces to the kernel source code.

i.e. could you try to just give SystemTap a chance and attempt to 
integrate a portion of LTT with it ... that shares more of the 
infrastructure and we'd obviously only need "one" markup variant, and 
would have full markup (removal-) flexibility. I'll try to help djprobes 
as much as possible. Hm?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/