[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263548124.4244.358.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:35:24 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Cc: Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 04:26 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>
> > [...]
> > Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
> > and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
> > inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really is an crap name).
>
> At one point ubp+uprobes were one piece. They were separated on the
> suspicion that lkml would like them that way.
Right, good thinking, that way we can use ubp without having to use
utrace ;-)
> > Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to
> > use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting.
>
> Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the
> layering relationship of these pieces. utrace underlies uprobes and
> other process manipulation functionality, present and future.
Why, utrace doesn't at all look to bring a fundamental contribution to
all that. If there's a proper kernel interface to install probes on
userspace code (ubp seems to be mostly that) then I can use perf/ftrace
to do the rest of the state management, no need to use utrace there.
You can hardly force me to use utrace there, can you?
--
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