On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2007 12:44:13 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is currently used as an instrumentation infrastructure for the LTTng > > > tracer at IBM, Google, Autodesk, Sony, MontaVista and deployed in > > > WindRiver products. The SystemTAP project also plan to use this type of > > > infrastructure to trace sites hard to instrument. The Linux Kernel > > > Markers has the support of Frank C. Eigler, author of their current > > > marker alternative (which he wishes to drop in order to adopt the > > > markers infrastructure as soon as it hits mainline). > > > > All of the above don't use mainline kernels. > > That's because they have to add a markers patch!
I meant they use very old kernels. Their experiences don't apply to mainline bitrottyness. > > That doesn't constitute using it. > > Andi, there was a huge amount of discussion about all this in September last > year (subjects: *markers* and *LTTng*). The outcome of all that was, I > believe, that the kernel should have a static marker infrastructure. I have no problem with that in principle; just some doubts about the current proposed implementation: in particular its complexity. And also I think when something is merged it should have some users in tree. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/