From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752576AbYIXFnm (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:43:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750937AbYIXFne (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:43:34 -0400 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:49096 "EHLO e28esmtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750844AbYIXFne (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:43:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:12:00 +0530 From: "K.Prasad" To: Tom Zanussi Cc: Martin Bligh , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Mathieu Desnoyers , Steven Rostedt , od@suse.com, "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Andrew Morton , hch@lst.de, David Wilder Subject: Re: Unified tracing buffer Message-ID: <20080924054200.GA7103@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <33307c790809191433w246c0283l55a57c196664ce77@mail.gmail.com> <1221869279.8359.31.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20080922140740.GB5279@in.ibm.com> <1222094724.16700.11.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1222147545.6875.135.camel@charm-linux> <33307c790809230700o4bf0d22fg8ab2dcb904f7d66c@mail.gmail.com> <1222228215.7761.0.camel@charm-linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1222228215.7761.0.camel@charm-linux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:50:15PM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 07:00 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote: > > > - get rid of anything having to do with padding, nobody needs it and its > > > only affect has been to horribly distort and complicate a lot of the > > > code > > > - get rid of sub-buffers, they just cause confusion > > > - get rid of mmap, nobody uses it > > > - no sub-buffers and no mmap support means we can get rid of most of the > > > callbacks, and a lot of API confusion along with them > > > - add relay flags - they probably should have been used from the > > > beginning and options made explicit instead of being shoehorned into the > > > callback functions. > > > > Actually, I think if you did all that, it'd be pretty close to what we > > want anyway ... > > OK, then, I'll continue with the cleanup patchset and see where it > goes... > > Tom > Hi Tom, Kindly let us know if the patches are available in some downloadable location or have been maintained in a git tree. I'm planning to re-base the relay_* interfaces (erstwhile 'trace' code), to work on top of your patches. Thanks, K.Prasad