From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=AfG6ydgW6QAgdRu0lPyaYwrTA2PIAMVgtJGbLxqf6f8=; b=wQ0F7MN/BRC+grJ37+Jrxn5/Cc5NiddnHVQsU/qd4Rq35QlMy9QBnSd4ufaMb/P2b1 y49hKhVbf9/FiywuGsPKINPiGQgC5peD8b8pXI+KKYbLUGJ3Q7DfPaBgIZQNKs3xspfJ BlT8BacmP224TkrSI7ooDYsJ+QmhwQcNSCvr0= Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:48:14 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes Message-ID: <20190322134814.GB56461@google.com> References: <60988959.4070.1541112982406.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1199524058.2398.1553016874435.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20190321124122.GA30542@google.com> <20190321091356.38a6988d@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190321091356.38a6988d@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [diamon-discuss] [RELEASE] LTTng-modules 2.9.11, 2.10.8, 2.11.0-rc2 (Linux kernel tracer) List-Id: DiaMon diagnostic and monitoring workgroup general discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Steven Rostedt Cc: diamon-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, lttng-dev , linux-kernel On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:41:22 -0400 > Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Also does it also make sense for lttng ring buffer to use the ftrace code for > > ring buffer, or make the ftrace ring buffer better and have lttng use it? Or > > is the lttng ring buffer design too radically different? > > We tried in the past and never actually got something that we both > could agree on. Now I believe the user space tools depend on the way > each one is, so to change one will break the tools that read it. I understand :-\ thanks, - Joel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: [diamon-discuss] [RELEASE] LTTng-modules 2.9.11, 2.10.8, 2.11.0-rc2 (Linux kernel tracer) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:48:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20190322134814.GB56461@google.com> References: <60988959.4070.1541112982406.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1199524058.2398.1553016874435.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20190321124122.GA30542@google.com> <20190321091356.38a6988d@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190321091356.38a6988d@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , diamon-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, lttng-dev , linux-kernel List-Id: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:41:22 -0400 > Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Also does it also make sense for lttng ring buffer to use the ftrace code for > > ring buffer, or make the ftrace ring buffer better and have lttng use it? Or > > is the lttng ring buffer design too radically different? > > We tried in the past and never actually got something that we both > could agree on. Now I believe the user space tools depend on the way > each one is, so to change one will break the tools that read it. I understand :-\ thanks, - Joel