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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists