Re: Ιnstrumenting RADOS with Zipkin + LTTng

[Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@inktank.com>]

On 10/30/2014 01:49 PM, Andrew Shewmaker wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm Andrew, a new Ceph intern, and I'll be working to get Marios'
> Zipkin + LTTng repo into a merge-able state, as Sam asked about
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg20024.html).
>
> I've exchanged email with Marios, and he is interested in
> helping me with it in his spare time. One of the important
> things he mentioned is that his blkin library only works
> with LTTng 2.4. Other versions experience deadlocks, and
> he'll work to resolve them in 2.5.
>
> I'm still working on getting a ceph development environment
> set up, so I haven't tested the tracepoints Marios added.
> I have built an RPM spec file for blkin, tested it against
> lttng-ust 2.3 and 2.4, and built (but not tested) Marios'
> ceph branch.
>
> Should I put effort into adding a "--with-blkin" or "--with-zipkin"
> option to autoconf?
>
> I've made a first attempt at dividing the changes into
> logically grouped patches: common blkin infrastructure,
> osd, and rados. Does that sound reasonable? Or should
> I not bother separating osd and rados changes?
>
> I saw a couple instances of extraneous whitespace/newlines
> I'll clean up. What other issues should I look for?
>
> After they're cleaned up, would it be best for me to submit these
> patches to the list, or just point to a github repo?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew Shewmaker

Just wanted to say I'm really looking forward to this. :)

Mark

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>