From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: add tracepoints to socket api Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:23:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20090127172323.GA7635@infradead.org> References: <20090126195930.GA28208@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20090127171857.GB14429@infradead.org> <20090127.092017.40699485.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: hch@infradead.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:38971 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753537AbZA0RXZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:23:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090127.092017.40699485.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:20:17AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Christoph Hellwig > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:18:57 -0500 > > > Do we now have lttng in linux-next? Otherwise these trace point would > > be useless there without more patching. > > We're merging this stuff to solve the chicken and egg > problem wherein the lttng tree merge is basically > stalled. > > If the individual subsystem annotations go in, the hope > is that they'll have less to merge and thus it's more likely > to actually happen. I'm rather concerned as I haven't seen any progress on the lttng core lately. I'd really prefer to have a version in close to mergeable shape first, that's actively beeing pushed. Adding the instrumentation is trivial as seen by this small patch, but getting the core right (and who knows if that involves changing the way actual instrumentation works, it's not like that hasn't changed n million times yet) is essential.