[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100115131037.GP4822@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:10:37 -0500
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
Hi -
> > > 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?
utrace is not a form of punishment inflicted upon the undeserving. It
is a service layer that uprobes et alii are built upon. You as a
potential uprobes client need not also talk directly to it, if you
wish to reimplement task-finder-like services some other way.
- FChE
--
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