* Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:
kernel/utrace.c should probably be introduced as
kernel/trace/utrace.c not kernel/utrace.c. It also overlaps pending
work in the tracing tree and cooperation would be nice and desired.
Of course I would like to cooperate with everyone. And of
Denys Vlasenko dvlas...@redhat.com writes:
[...]
Here's the /debugfs/tracing/process_trace_README:
process event tracer mini-HOWTO [...]
A HOWTO text in the kernel binary? Shouldn't it be in
Documentation/* instead? [...]
It parallels the debugfs/tracing/README file.
- FChE
* Frank Ch. Eigler (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hi -
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 05:45:26PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
[...]
As far as I know, utrace supports multiple trace-engines on a process.
Since ptrace is just an engine of utrace, you can add another engine on
utrace.
Hi -
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 01:08:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
[...]
In my own limited kernel-building experience, I find the debuginfo
data conveniently and instantly available after every make. Can
you elaborate how is it harder for you to incidentally make it
than for someone
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Yes, ptrace-over-utrace needs more work. But your message looks as if
utrace core is buggy, imho this is a bit unfair ;)
As Roland said, ptrace-over-utrace is not ready yet. If you mean that
utrace core should not be merged
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 05:04:22AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:51:41 -0400 Frank Ch. Eigler f...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 04:19:54AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I have strong memories of being traumatised by reading the uprobes code.
That was a long
