Re: [F.A.Q.] perf ABI backwards and forwards compatibility

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Theodore Tso wrote:
It's great to hear that! But in that case, there's an experiment we can't really run, which is if perf had been developed in a separate tree, would it have been just as successful?

Experiment, eh?

We have the staging tree because it's a widely acknowledged belief that kernel code in the tree tends to improve over time compared to code that's sitting out of the tree. Are you disputing that belief?

If you don't dispute that, what makes you think the same effect doesn't apply to code that looks like Linux code and is developed the same way but runs in userspace?

			Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux