* Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Will Drewry wrote: > >> > >> > Since it seems that there'll be consumers (openssh, vsftpd, > >> > kvm/qemu, chromium, chromium os) and feedback quieted down, what > >> > are the next steps to get this to a pull/no-pull decision points > >> > (or at least some Ack's or Nack's)? I know this patch series > >> > crosses a number of maintainers, and I never know exactly what's > >> > next when the feedback slows down. > >> > >> Are there any outstanding objections to this approach? How do the > >> tracing folk feel about it? > > > > I think i outlined my objections a couple of times and haven't seen > > them addressed. > > After our last discussion, I suggested changes which I then undertook > and reposted. Those changes have been posted for over two weeks. Have you addressed my basic objection of why we should go for a more complex and less capable variant over a shared yet more capable facility: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20110526091518.GE26775@xxxxxxx ? You are pushing the 'filter engine' approach currently, not the (much) more unified 'event filters' approach. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
