On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22:52PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Cool!
Your design looks good to me. It reminds me of a latch. My only fear is
that struct timekeeper is probably too large to be copied every time on
the read path. Here is a slightly reworked version that would allow
I think processing the list of rules is a must because it shows the user
precisely and concisely what is going to happen during his session.
I will need to think about the best way to collate (unify) the enablement
specifications. It seems to be an interesting set-theoretic exercise. A
* Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org) wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:22:52PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Cool!
Your design looks good to me. It reminds me of a latch. My only fear is
that struct timekeeper is probably too large to be copied every time on
the read path. Here is
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 09:48:16AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
struct foo {
...
};
spinlock_t foo_lock;
struct latchfoo {
unsigned int head, tail;
struct foo data[2];
};
/**
* foo_write_begin - begin foo update.
*
@lf: struct latchfoo to update.
*
Tiny RFC! :)
Hopefully, the change is not that big in lttng-tools to support a new Java
domain and this RFC sums it up in terms of *public* changes.
Cheers!
David
RFC - Java JUL LTTng Tools API/ABI
Author: David Goulet dgou...@efficios.com
Version:
- v0.1: 10/09/2013
*
Hi Colin,
I just read your post on:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2013-May/028450.html
and, although I'm very pleased to see that LTTng provides good
performances in your tests, there is a small detail on your benchmarking
approach I would like to bring to your attention. If you
Hi lttng-testers,
The current lttng-tools testsuite has some limitations as recently
pointed out on this OpenEmbedded thread [1].
The testsuite cannot be runned against an installed codebase of
lttng-tools because the tests assume that the lttng cli and the
testapps are located in the build
On 09/12/2013 06:29 PM, Christian Babeux wrote:
Hi lttng-testers,
The current lttng-tools testsuite has some limitations as recently
pointed out on this OpenEmbedded thread [1].
The testsuite cannot be runned against an installed codebase of
lttng-tools because the tests assume that the
Still, I think it's good to include these tests. If anything they may
just provide more motivation to address the underlying issue. :-)
Absolutely! I'll start a thread on lttng-dev to see how we can deal
with the current testsuite limitations.
++prove --merge -v --exec '' - $1 | sed \
++
* Colin Ian King (colin.k...@canonical.com) wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
On 12/09/13 22:44, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hi Colin,
I just read your post on:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2013-May/028450.html
and, although I'm very pleased to see that LTTng provides good
Hi Mathieu,
On 12/09/13 22:44, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hi Colin,
I just read your post on:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2013-May/028450.html
and, although I'm very pleased to see that LTTng provides good
performances in your tests, there is a small detail on your
11 matches
Mail list logo
