On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 06:49:50AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: Ingo, > Note, i'm not yet convinced that this (and the rest: uprobes and systemtap, > etc.) can go uptream in its present form. Agreed, uprobes is still not upstream ready -- it was an RFC. We are working through the comments there to get it ready for merger. > IMHO the far more important thing to address beyond formalities and workflow > cleanliness are the (many) technical observations and objections offered by > Peter Zijstra on lkml. Not just the git history but also the abstractions and > concepts are messy and should be reworked IMO, and also good and working perf > events integration should be achieved, etc. I think Oleg addressed most of Peter's concerns on utrace when the ptrace/utrace patchset was reposted. Perf integration with uprobes will be done and discussions have started with Masami and Frederic. There are a couple of fundamental technical aspects (XOL vma vs. emulation; breakpoint insertion through CoW and not through quiesce) that need resolution. > The fact that there's a well established upstream workflow for instrumentation > patches, which is being routed around by the utrace/uprobes/systemtap code > here is not a good sign in terms of reaching a good upstream solution. Lets > hope it works out well though. Agreed. On the other hand, having ptrace/utrace in the -next tree will give it a lot more testing, while any outstanding technical issues are being addressed. Stephen, To exercise ptrace/utrace, it would be very useful if you pulled in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frob/linux-2.6-utrace.git branch utrace-ptrace instead of 'master'. Thanks, Ananth -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
