* Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. An addition question I want to discuss in here is the ktap
> code structure layout in first patch series, this don't need to
> dig out any ktap design detail, so we can make agreement on this
> point, and ease for me to prepare patch series.
>
> Do I need to prepare patchset target on staging tree or "real"
> part of kernel? [...]
I'd suggest adding it to the core, i.e. kernel/tracing/ and
kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c in particular which includes the
current filter script interpreter.
(Please also make sure that the Lua copyright notices get carried
over properly.)
> [...] If target on driver/staging/ktap, then kernel code and
> userspace code still need to locate at same directory, that many
> people may don't like it.
>
> Target on "real" part kernel? - include/trace/ktap (header file
> common used by interpreter and userspace compiler) -
> kernel/trace/ktap (interpreter code, ktapvm, pure kernel module) -
> tools/perf/ktap?(userspace compiler code)
> As I also agree integrating ktap and perf together, two
> subsystem can share many codes, so it's better putting ktap
> userspace into perf directory.
Once there's a more split-out submission it will be easier to see
what belongs where. I agree with Pekka that for the user the UI
should be integrated and obvious.
I'd also like there to be a natural 'extract the script'
functionality from an installed tap script. This gives more
flexibiliy and improves security as well: no hidden, binary-only
crap, every script installed on a running system should be
extractable in source form, should be reviewable and modifiable.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
