From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752365AbYK1M6m (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:58:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752502AbYK1M6O (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:58:14 -0500 Received: from tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34]:42955 "EHLO tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752409AbYK1M6L (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:58:11 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAOx1L0lMROB9/2dsb2JhbACBbc82gn0 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:58:09 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Andrew Morton Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sam@smtp.polymtl.ca, Ravnborg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng kernel integration roadmap, update Message-ID: <20081128125809.GB10401@Krystal> References: <20081124112842.GA15615@Krystal> <20081124114124.GA32459@infradead.org> <20081124122055.GA18626@Krystal> <20081125055744.c3377164.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081125055744.c3377164.akpm@linux-foundation.org> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.21.3-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 07:56:35 up 11 days, 13:37, 2 users, load average: 0.13, 0.44, 0.66 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton (akpm@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:58:40 -0500 (EST) Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > The question that prevails is therefore : should we ship userspace > > > binary with the kernel tree at all ? And if yes, how should the resuting > > > executables be packaged and deployed ? Should it be installed in the > > > system along with kernel modules or should it be populated into a > > > filesystem populated by kernelspace ? > > > > > > Or is it better to do as we have always done and keep the userspace > > > tools separated from the kernel tree ? > > > > I say keep the user space tools separate as much as possible. > > So... we're now planning to build even more userspace tools into the > kernel merely because we don't know how to deliver userspace tools in > userspace? > > Worse, those kernel-based userspace tools will simply be presenting a > textual form of something which the kernel already makes available in a > binary form? > > This is so lame. > > Any proposal to fix all this will result in vast amounts of > inconclusive chin-scratching again. Last time this came up, we ended > up with the old impractical put-it-in-util-linux chestnut. I think the > time has come for us to admit that this isn't working out. > > Mathieu, if you're feeling keen I'd suggest that you just type `mkdir > -p userspace/lttng' and build your userspace tools in there. One they > are there and real, the issues around versioning, installation and > delivery will still need tobe sorted out, but we need to start > somewhere. > Yes, I like the idea of having a kernel-developer oriented version of the userspace tools, which may not have packaging requirements as strong as standard userspace packages. Just keeping them around with the kernel build tree would be a good start, and we could probably go as far as installing them along with the kernel modules in /lib/modules/`uname -r`. Mathieu > > _______________________________________________ > ltt-dev mailing list > ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev > -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68