Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > [...] As I understand it, you are not only proposing to make that > filter extremely fine (individually addressable trace points), but > also to enable the application of scripting tools like systemtap and > LTTng in order to provide bespoke debugging of your customer > problems. Have I misunderstood you, or is that correct? Perhaps. > The question then is how is this going to work out in an environment > where the individually addressable trace points/dprintk()s pop in > and out of existence at the whim of a patch, and where the output > format is similarly volatile? It would work no worse than what there is now. For environments where the code is not subject to that much patching, it could be piggybacked-upon for more analysis. > IOW: I'm referring to the difference between an interface that was > designed purely to be interpreted by humans, and one that is > designed from scratch to be interpreted by scripts. It need not be a disjunction. As more formal machine-oriented interfaces come into existence, the same tools can shift focus to them. Depending on the tool, the shift may be nearly invisible to a naive end user. - FChE -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
