[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:20:38 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ktap and ebpf integration
> Anyway, I think there will don't have any necessary to upstream
> ktap any more, I still enjoy the simplicity and flexibility given
Not sure how you got to that conclusion.
You were asked to evaluate if EBPF is an alternative
for ktap. It looks like the answer is no. So the original KTAP VM design
is back on the table. You can continue pursuing to merge that.
No reason to give up.
BTW I agree that EBPF won't work for ktap. The models
(static vs dynamic typing etc.) are just too different.
But it's good that it was studied in detail.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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