[PATCH 3/3] utrace-based ftrace "process" engine, v2
Ingo Molnar
mingo at elte.hu
Sun Mar 22 12:37:49 UTC 2009
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> > > If testing utrace against its main application requires installation
> > > of a complete enterprise distro from a distro [...]
> >
> > This has *never* been a requirement.
>
> You guys are getting off a tangent.
>
> Let's go back to the post that started this all.
>
> > The thing is, utrace crashes in Fedora have dominated kerneloops.org
> > for many months, so i'm not sure what to make of the idea of posting
> > a 4000+ lines of core kernel code patchset on the last day of the
> > development cycle, a posting that has carefully avoided the Cc:-ing
> > of affected maintainers ;-)
>
> .. and dammit, I agree 100%. If utrace really shows up in _any_
> way on kerneloops.org, then I think THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION in this
> thread is moot.
>
> I'm not going to take known-bad crap. It's that simple. Don't
> bother posting it, don't bother discussing it, don't bother making
> excuses for it.
The kerneloops stats on utrace crashes are way down currently,
after that peak last fall. So i didnt want to suggest that it's
known-broken now - i only wanted to point out that it's a
known-risky area and that the submission of it should involve
the affected maintainers/developers.
Regarding current stability, Roland, Frank, is the utrace patch in
latest (today's) Fedora rawhide:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 176555 2009-01-08 05:42 linux-2.6-utrace.patch
a bug fixed equivalent of the utrace bits that crashed in the
2.6.26.3 kernel? In that case it is certainly known-good.
Or is it a slimmed-down version?
The ptrace bits and signoffs from Oleg and Alexey would certainly
help (me) in trusting it. (I've Cc:-ed Oleg and Alexey)
The ftrace bits could certainly be staged to go in via the tracing
tree (in .31 or so) after the utrace-core+ptrace bits went upstream.
Ingo
More information about the utrace-devel
mailing list