Re: [RFC] Instrumentation (was Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1)

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 23:23 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> > Well, that's really a core problem. We don't want to duplicate 
> > infrastructure, which practically does the same. So if relayfs isn't 
> > usable in this kind of situation, it really raises the question whether 
> > relayfs is usable at all. We need to make relayfs generally usable, 
> > otherwise it will join the fate of devfs.
> 
> Hmm, coming from you I will take this is a pretty strong endorsement
> for what I was suggesting earlier: provide a basic buffering mode
> in relayfs to be used in kernel debugging. However, it must be
> understood that this is separate from the existing modes and ltt,
> for example, could not use such a basic infrastructure. If this is
> ok with you, and no one wants to complain too loudly about this, I
> will go ahead and add this to our to-do list for relayfs.

This implies to seperate 

- infrastructure 
- event registration
- transport mechanism

tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/