Re: Discussion at Linux Foundation Japan Symposium

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>]

Hi -

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:17:49PM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> [...]
> Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > That is one possible solution for this specific problem -- rawhide
> > systemtap users who're unable/unwilling to build systemtap out of git
> > occasoinally.  (Remember that the recent 2.6.28 breakage took a few
> > hours to fix.)
> > 
> > Another solution would be for rawhide-style distributions to
> > aggressively package systemtap snapshots into their development
> > streams [...]
> 
> Even if we do that, we have to clarify which package can be applied
> to which kernel version. 

In what way?  There would be one package in rawhide, which should work
on every kernel version that we've ever worked with.  It would be
replaced frequently - perhaps every few days.


> I'm still not sure when some bugs reported on this ml are fixed -
> e.g.  http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2009-q1/msg00029.html

There was no bugzilla report associated with it, but it was fixed the
same day.


> BTW, more those kind of bugfix are committed, more autoconfs are
> introduced. We already has 15(!) autoconfs,

Yes, but as you know, their cost has a benefit: they enable our
operation with a whole spectrum of kernel versions.


> and these autoconfs increase compilation time (this will be avoided
> by caching the result per kernel...).[...]

FWIW, on my workstation, they seem to add about a second.


> >>    and eventually I suspect markers infrastructure will probably
> >>    disappear entirely since tracepoints are perceived as better and
> >>    as their replacement.
> > 
> > (That would probably hurt lttng more than it would systemtap.)
> 
> (Now, lttng is working with kernel community, I think this doesn't hurt
> lttng so much.)

I'm simply saying that currently lttng thoroughly depends on markers,
which systemtap does not.


- FChE