On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 21:32:25 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Looks like you missed Brendan Gregg's prior feedback from v1 [0]. I haven't > seen a strong compelling argument for why this needs to reside in the kernel > tree given we also have all the other tracing tools and many of which also > rely on BPF such as bcc, bpftrace, ply, systemtap, sysdig, lttng to just name > a few. So I'm just watching from the sidelines here, but I do feel the need to point out that Kris appears to be trying to follow the previous feedback he got from Alexei, where creating tools/dtrace is exactly what he was told to do: https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20190521175617.ipry6ue7o24a2e6n@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Now he's being told the exact opposite. Not the best experience for somebody who is trying to make the kernel better. There are still people interested in DTrace out there. How would you recommend that Kris proceed at this point? Thanks, jon
