linux-kernel - Re: [diamon-discuss] [RELEASE] LTTng-modules 2.9.11, 2.10.8, 2.11.0-rc2 (Linux kernel tracer)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190322134814.GB56461@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:48:14 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        diamon-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
        lttng-dev <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [diamon-discuss] [RELEASE] LTTng-modules 2.9.11, 2.10.8,
 2.11.0-rc2 (Linux kernel tracer)

On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:41:22 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> 
> > Also does it also make sense for lttng ring buffer to use the ftrace code for
> > ring buffer, or make the ftrace ring buffer better and have lttng use it? Or
> > is the lttng ring buffer design too radically different?
> 
> We tried in the past and never actually got something that we both
> could agree on. Now I believe the user space tools depend on the way
> each one is, so to change one will break the tools that read it.

I understand :-\

thanks,

 - Joel