|
From: Mark W. <mj...@re...> - 2009-09-11 19:51:53
|
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 15:06 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:03:35PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Frederic Weisbecker <fwe...@gm...> writes: > > > > > [...] I'm really looking forward seeing this C expression-like > > > kprobe creation tool. It seems powerful enough to replace printk + > > > kernel rebuild. No need anymore to write some printk to debug, > > > worrying, [...] > > > > To a large extent, systemtap had delivered this already some years > > ago, including the cushy ponies dancing in the sunlight. While such > > low-level machinery is fine, some of our experience indicates that it > > is dramatically easier to use if high-level, symbolic, debugging data > > is used to compute probe locations and variable names/types/locations. > > No, systemtap has been for years failing to delivers this in a way that > it could be usefully integrated into the kernel. You are saying "No" to a claim Frank didn't even make. > Masami's patches are > exactly the kind of low-level functionality we absolutely need in the > kernel tree so that we can built more useful higherlevel tools ontop > of this. And nobody is denying that either. I think everybody agrees that Masami is doing some really wonderful work and improving the kprobes foundations in a way that any higher level tracing tool will benefit from it. Cheers, Mark |