[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080830134057.GB17566@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:40:57 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] utrace
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:10:55PM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> Uprobes is just one user of utrace. It is intended for use for simple
> tracing where we need a kernel+userspace look at the problem at hand.
> The intention is for use in simple cases (when condition x is met, what
> is the value of variable y, etc).
>
> For more advanced tracing though, there are other ideas being proposed
> (see ntrace discussions on utrace-devel, but I guess now lkml is the
> right place for that discussion too).
>
> However, there are components of uprobes such as breakpoint
> insertion/removal and single-stepping infrastructure that are
> potentially useful to other userspace debuggers. We are working on
> factoring those out to live independent of uprobes. You should be seeing
> those patches soon.
I hope my original mail was clear that I'm not principially against
utrace. I think having a generic trace even dispatcher is a good thing
if it is a) not overly complicated (see Alexeyús mails for that) and b)
actually has a user. A better debugger interface as the ntrace idea
would be the prime candidate for that.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists