On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 15:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:11:19 +0100
> Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> 
> > Where the plugin (ought to) live depends heavily on whether we
> > consider
> > the trace format a stable ABI or not.
> 
> Agreed. Like the VMware plugin to handle ESX traces. It's internal
> and not
> published as the API is not stable.
> 
Mmm... Does this imply that Linux's tracepoints should be considered a
stable ABI then? :-D :-D :-D

> But if it ever becomes stable, and you would like it to live with
> KernelShark, we are looking to have a place to store third party
> plugins.
> 
Sure. TBH, either Xen or KernelShark main or plugin repositories would
be fine for me.

Which doesn't mean we should choose randomly, as clearly each solution
has pros and cons that needs to be evaluated.

I'm just saying that we would prefer the plugin to end up in one of
those places, rather than remaining its own project. And of course
we're up for maintaining it, wherever it lands. :-)

> We are working to make sure that the API for KernelShark plugins
> remains
> stable, so your plugins should always work too.
> 
Great!

Regards
-- 
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)