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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609172319370.6761@scrub.home>
Date:	Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:36:43 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	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

Hi,

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > Some consistency would certainly help: 'my suggested API is not 
> > "barely usable" for static tracers but "totally unusable".'
> 
> I am really sorry that you were able to misunderstand and misrepresent 
> such a simple sentence.

Considering the context, which is not exactly full of support for static 
tracer, I think my understanding was and still is quite correct.
Let's take <20060915231419.GA24731@...e.hu>, where you suggest converting 
as much possible tracepoints to this API, thus excluding a lot of
information from static tracers.

> this makes it clear that i disagree with adding static markups for 
> static tracers - but i of course still agree with static markups for 
> _dynamic tracers_. The markups would be totally unusable for static 
> tracers because there is no guarantee for the existence of static 
> markups _everywhere_: the static markups would come and go, as per the 
> "tracepoint maintainance model". Do you understand that or should i 
> explain it in more detail?

Well, I rather just wait for the real patch, where you can show your 
support for all possible users.

bye, Roman
-
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/