[linuxtools-dev] [Hudson] Hudson build became unstable: linuxtools-master #1207

See -- This message is automatically generated by Hudson. For more information on Hudson, see: http://hudson-ci.org/ ___ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https

Re: [linuxtools-dev] Juno SR2 RC1 is approaching

On 01/08/2013 03:22 PM, Patrick Tasse wrote: Yes, I will add the 1.2.1 milestone shortly. -- Jeff J. Hi Jeff, That LTTng bug just happened to be reported in bugzilla today. Should there be a "1.2.1" option in the "Target Milestones" field? Thanks On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Johnston

Re: [linuxtools-dev] TMF state of processes from LTTng kernel traces

Hi Michel, Thanks for the contribution! I have pushed your 2 patches to Eclipse's Gerrit for review: https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/9540/ https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/9541/ We use Gerrit for code review, so in the future you could push proposed patches directly there, it would make it more simpl

Re: [linuxtools-dev] Juno SR2 RC1 is approaching

Hi Jeff, That LTTng bug just happened to be reported in bugzilla today. Should there be a "1.2.1" option in the "Target Milestones" field? Thanks On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote: > This is a reminder that next week I will be building the Juno SR2 RC1 > build from the stable-1

[linuxtools-dev] Juno SR2 RC1 is approaching

This is a reminder that next week I will be building the Juno SR2 RC1 build from the stable-1.2 branch. If there are important or minor fixes that need to be added, please submit them via gerrit to be reviewed. Do not self-review for these. There is currently one additional change from the L

[linuxtools-dev] [Hudson] Hudson build is back to stable : linuxtools-master #1205

See -- This message is automatically generated by Hudson. For more information on Hudson, see: http://hudson-ci.org/ ___ linuxtools-dev mailing list linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org https

[linuxtools-dev] TMF Name of processes from LTTng kernel traces

Again along the lines of perfecting the display of processes states from kernel traces, I have another small suggestion. The code needed to convert event data to "state" information is simple and well localized. It is therefore fairly easy to leverage the infrastructure put in place by the TMF t

[linuxtools-dev] TMF state of processes from LTTng kernel traces

I noticed that the control flow view does not distinguish between processes waiting for CPU (runnable) and processes blocked (e.g. waiting for IO). The information is available from the sched_switch event (prevState) and it is thus easy to add this state information. Please find at the end of