This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: Meeting minutes 20060727
- From: Tim Bird <tim dot bird at am dot sony dot com>
- To: jrs at us dot ibm dot com
- Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>, systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu dot desnoyers at polymtl dot ca>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:24:53 -0700
- Subject: Re: Meeting minutes 20060727
- References: <email@example.com> <44CF0AA0.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Jose R. Santos wrote:
> After reviewing the code for both LTTng and LKST it seems like LKET
> shares more similarities with LKST than it does with LTTng (both in
> available trace hooks and general philosophy of the projects). Another
> key advantage of the LKST projects is that the folks from Hitachi have a
> set of post-processing programs already available. LTTv on the other
> hand does not seem to have that many useful post-processing plugin.
> I would say that a good starting point would be to get LKET and LKST
> standardize as much as possible since I think they share the most in
Sorry for the late response. I agree that LKST has some good
What do you propose to standardize between LKET and LKST?
And what is the nature of the standardization? (That is,
what are you defining, and how would it be defined so that
it would be re-usable between projects?)
I think Hiramatsu-san said something about porting LKST
probe points to SystemTap. You mention the LKST post-processing
tools. I'm wondering how other projects can get involved in
this standardization, if possible.
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics