Hi Andi, This plan makes sense. I will split the "patched in enabled/disable flags" part into a separate piece (good idea!) and then submit the LTTng core to Andrew. Christoph's has a good point about wanting a usable infrastructure to go ini. Regarding your plan, I must argue that blktrace is not a general purpose tracing infrastructure, but one dedicated to block io tracing. Therefore, it makes sense to bring in the generic infrastructure first and then convert blktrace to it.
Mathieu * Andi Kleen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > If we are looking at current "potential users" that are already in > > mainline, we could change blktrace to make it use the markers. > > Ok, but do it step by step: > - split out useful pieces like the "patched in enable/disable flags" > and submit them separate with an example user or two > [I got a couple of candidates e.g. with some of the sysctls in VM or > networking] > - post and merge that. > - don't implement anything initially that is not needed by blktrace > - post a minimal marker patch together with the blktrace > conversion for review again on linux-kernel > - await review comments. This review would not cover the basic > need of markers, just the specific implementation. > - then potentially merge incorporate review comments > - then merge > - later add features with individual review/discussion as new users in the > kernel are added. > > -Andi -- Mathieu Desnoyers Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 - 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/
