On Dec 2, 2007 8:10 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The problem is I really hate adding patches that provide new user interfaces. I understand this concern > It's easy enough to add it, but it'll be a 'fedora-ism' that doesn't work > in any other distro, or with an upstream kernel. I can't grok this sentence. what do stop working upstream if we add this? > And what happens > if someone starts building more things on top of the sysprof exports? Who should be this "someone"? Anyway, the answer looks like: he get bite when we will drop the patch. How bad is it? > > It's the same reason patches that add syscalls get vetoed. We don't > want to be in a situation where it appears we're locking users into > running our distro/kernel. Of all the complaints I have seen in the past about our kernels, this never shown up, but I'm sure you collected much more than me... Point is, you are the kernel maintainer here so, though I can't fully understand your concerns, I assume they are valid and I better stop arguing on things I can not fully evaluate. So my last question for you is: how are those scenarios likely? I mean, do you see a concrete risk someone will build something on top of the current sysprof interface? It would be really a pity (and a regression) if sysprof will lack the binary module because of some recondite reason. _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
