On 2013-04-22 11:51, Matthew Khouzam wrote: > On 13-04-22 08:55 AM, Jan Glauber wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:03:39AM -0400, Matthew Khouzam wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> I have a few questions about the patch: >>> Does it handle lost events? >>> I think we would need to bring in a state system for this >> Hi Matthew, >> >> Not sure what you mean there. I thought lost events are not recorded so >> there is >> nothing to convert. What I do convert is the events_lost counter of LTT. The >> value is copied to the events_discarded of LTTng. At least that looked >> reasonable >> to me. Can you elaborate why we would need a state machine there? > In lttv, the control flow view and company needs a state system. The > events in lttng 0.x and 2.0 are slightly different, so we won't see > stuff like the current TID and file statuses. I'm just giving you the > heads up that it may be not so trivial to get the info. The best thing > to do IMO is look up events in LTTng 2.0 and try to match the ones you > have in babeltrace to them. > That way, it will work with lttv and eclipse. > I'm not sure either that I understand what you mean.
The goal is just to convert traces, not create a whole state system. When we will be able to get a converted trace, the viewers could adjust to support them. Yannick _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
