On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 11:19:46AM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: >> If we talk about analyzing and filtering crash dumps, I can totally >> see an argument for putting something under tools/ if the authors of >> mkdumpfile and crash are interested. Those tools fundamentally really >> do follow kernel internals. > >I agree that the argument is stronger for tools/ inclusion if internal >APIs need to be followed. Of course perf doesn't need internals APIs >and it's in tools/. > Well, I don't remember clearly why perf was proposed to be included into kernel tree by Ingo, I think it was internal API/ABI issue as well.
