[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d62eef15-f6c9-4299-b4ff-4b0d5631c35e@efficios.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:37:50 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Beau Belgrave <beaub@...ux.microsoft.com>, "Dmitry V. Levin"
<ldv@...ace.io>, Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
rppt@...nel.org, david@...hat.com, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 3/5] tracing: Allow user-space mapping of the
ring-buffer
On 2024-07-02 12:51, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 11:32:53 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
>> If we use '*' for user events already, perhaps we'd want to consider
>> using the same range for the ring buffer ioctls ? Arguably one is
>> about instrumentation and the other is about ring buffer interaction
>> (data transport), but those are both related to tracing.
>
> Yeah, but I still rather keep them separate.
No objection, I'm OK either way.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists