roland wrote: > After this change, we now need some fresh testing of things like Frank's > ftrace widget and stap's utrace-using modes. (Nothing should have > changed from the utrace API perspective.)
Righto. > * I've renamed "struct utrace_attached_engine" to "struct utrace_engine". > This was a cosmetic suggestion in an earlier LKML review, and I could not > really find any good reason to keep the longer name. We all seem to say > "a utrace engine" in conversation when talking about this object. > > I added the UTRACE_API_VERSION macro to ease existing utrace-using code > adapting to old/new names. After a corresponding s/// of the ftrace patch, the code appears to build fine. I'll add an uglier #ifdef to the systemtap runtime and will test the lot. > * I would like to have a final "in-team" top-to-bottom review of the main > utrace patch before sending to LKML. i.e. maybe by you, Frank, me, and > Oleg. > [...] I'll try to review it today. > * When we on the team think the utrace patch is ready to post, we need to > do a coordinated post of Frank's ftrace widget. [...] Would you consider simply merging it into your git tree / patch suite? - FChE
