Hi,
On 06/15/2011 07:23 AM, Alexandre Montplaisir wrote:
Hi David,
Sorry if I missed it, but what is the ultimate goal with lttng-tools? Is
it to
A) Become the unified trace controller for LTTng (kernel) and UST
(userspace) tracers.
or
B) Become a generic trace controller which people could "plug" their
tracers into, and which would come with initial support for LTTng and UST.
If it's A) and only A), I'd say yank the separate "libust" and merge it
into lttng-tools' tree. This is what happened with "lttctl", which is
now statically built in lttng-tools, right?
However modularity is never bad, perhaps going with an architecture like
B) is better long-term.
<snip>
I'm not sure I get this one. Is there a point for an application to use
libustcomm standalone, without the rest of libust? If not then they
should be kept together, no?
And I'd add 6), as mentioned before:
6) Drop the separate ust/libust package and merge it with lttng-tools.
I agree with this. If we want UST to be hardwired into LTTng we should
just merge UST into the LTTng repo completely.
I personally am not for this, I think it's a case of short-term
expediency winning over technical merit. I think a modular architecture
would be far nicer.
/Nils
In my humble semi-outsider opinion, if you want goal A) I'd say go with
6), if you want goal B) go with 1b)
Cheers,
_______________________________________________
ltt-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
