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

[Louis Z. <lou...@li...>]

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 09:08, Rusty Lynch wrote:
> > > 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?
Oh, you are right. so dependency diagram should be
original linux-2.5 =======> fi1 
    ||                       ||===> fi2
    ||==> kprobes ===========||

> 
> 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.  
In fact, "fi1" includes almost all things in FITH, including fi_core,
kmmio, MMIO interceptor, kirq, fake irq interceptor, code segments,
testing. Only DR and DBP will be put into . I admit the name is
confusing... maybe we can change "fi1" to "fi" and change "fi2" to
"fi-ext"...