* Gabbasov, Andrew (andrew_gabba...@mentor.com) wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
* Andrew Gabbasov (andrew_gabba...@mentor.com) wrote:
We have added some more ifdef's to kernel probes to more closely match
the kernel tracepoints for different kernel versions. The changes cover
kernel versions from
* Jon Bernard (jbern...@debian.org) wrote:
* David Goulet dgou...@efficios.com wrote:
Hi Jon,
Can you enlighten us on what setup are you using?
This symbol is used by lttng-ust which is linked with -lurcu-bp so
lttng-tools should not have an issue here.
Are you cross-compiling
* David Bryant (david.bry...@quantum.com) wrote:
Hi all,
Is it feasible to have an officially supported way of determining if a
tracepoint is currently enabled?
In my code I would like to test if the tracepoint is enabled, and if it
isn't, avoid doing expensive setup work.
I've been
Hi David,
Yes, it was fixed and cleaned up not long ago in 2.1.
I'll make sure to port the fix here.
Comments below:
David OShea:
Hi all,
I'm using lttng-tools-2.0.4. I got a segmentation fault in lttng-sessiond
with this stack trace:
#0 delete_ust_app_session (sock=-1,
Follow up. Just pushed a fix.
Please ping me if any problem occurs!
commit df3f5eb071e2af70de8a207ac41ea3cd5c1d44c3
Author: David Goulet dgou...@efficios.com
Date: Mon Dec 3 14:34:45 2012 -0500
Fix: Delete UST app session on ustctl create error
This has been updated in upstream
Greetings everyone (including LTTng elves),
The lttng-tools project provides a session daemon (lttng-sessiond)
that acts as a tracing registry, the lttng command line for tracing
control, a lttng-ctl library for tracing control and a lttng-relayd
for network streaming.
Note that 2.1-stable
On 04/12/12 01:04, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
* David Bryant (david.bry...@quantum.com) wrote:
Hi all,
Is it feasible to have an officially supported way of determining if a
tracepoint is currently enabled?
In my code I would like to test if the tracepoint is enabled, and if it
isn't, avoid
