Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fault-injection-developer] Remove kprobes dependency of kprobes?]

[Rusty L. <ru...@li...>]

> > Cool! It is already a truth in my local development machine. I'd like to
> > see that... IMHO, I'd like to split more trees, for example, 
> > original linux-2.5 =======> fi1 ===============||
> >    ||                       ||===> fi-all
> >    ||==> kprobes ==> fi2 ===||
> > 
> > fi1 tree is the FITH stuffs independent, fi2 tree is FITH stuffs
> > dependent on kprobes, fi-all is only an integrated tree.
> > 
> >   - Louis

hmmm... What changes would you make on top of the kprobes tree that does
not have any dependency on the core fault injection code?

My biggest concern (even with my original suggestion) is that the
available fault injection bk trees would be confusing for both the
casual observer and developers trying to get involved.  I would really
like to have only one tree that is _the_ fault injection tree, and then
a couple more trees that experiment with some additional code based on
external dependencies.  

    --rustyl