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: <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:22:14 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karim@...rsys.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	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


* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > > It's possible I missed something, but pretty much anything you 
> > > outlined wouldn't make the live of static tracepoints any easier.
> > 
> > sorry, but if you re-read the above line of argument, your sentence 
> > appears non-sequitor. I said "the markers needed for dynamic tracing are 
> > different from the LTT static tracepoints". You asked why they are so 
> > different, and i replied that i already outlined what the right API 
> > would be in my opinion to do markups, but that API is different from 
> > what LTT is offering now. To which you are now replying: "pretty much 
> > anything you outlined wouldn't make the life of static tracepoints any 
> > easier." Huh?
> 
> Yeah, huh?
>
> I have no idea, what you're trying to tell me. As you demonstrated 
> above your "right API" is barely usable for static tracers.

you raise a new point again (without conceding or disputing the point we 
were discussing, which point you snipped from your reply) but i'm happy 
to reply to this new point too: my suggested API is not "barely usable" 
for static tracers but "totally unusable". Did i tell you yet that i 
disagree with the addition of markups for static tracers?

	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/