On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 03:17:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:07:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 14:14 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > Greg, why are you merging this crap anyway? Aren't there enough tracer > > > thingies around already? > > > > I don't know, is there? > > > > There's some reason the distros, and users, still use lttng, > > so I'm guessing that it fits the needs of quite a few people. > > Same goes for a whole lot of other crap that distros are > carrying. Would we want to merge a different CPU scheduler or > the 4g:4g patch or a completely new networking stack into > drivers/staging/? I don't think so. Distros have new CPU schedulers and are still dragging the 4g split around? A whole new networking stack would be interesting, and if self-contained, possible :) > I.e. putting LTTNG into drivers/staging/ will not really solve > anything - and in may in fact delay any sane technical > resolution: > > There's a difference between a driver that has to go into > drivers/staging/ because nobody cares enough [and the driver > isnt high quality enough yet], and a core kernel feature that we > DO care about and which HAS BEEN REJECTED IN ITS FORM. I didn't realize that lttng was rejected, when was that done? I couldn't find it in the archives anywhere. That's why I took this. It's a way for the code to get cleaned up, and into "mergable" state, much easier, with more help than if it was out-of-tree. The fact that distros have been shipping and relying on it for years shows that it is something that is needed, and it being self-contained, makes it eligible for the staging tree. > > That's why I'm merging it, if that the in-kernel stuff > > obsoletes lttng, great, let me, and the distros know. > > I'm NAK-ing the LTTNG driver really, as it's a workaround for a > core kernel NAK. Huh? > Mathieu, please work with the tracing folks who DO care about > this stuff. It's not like there's a lack of interest in this > area, nor is there a lack of willingness to take patches. What > there is a lack of is your willingness to actually work on > getting something unified, integrated to users... > > LTTNG has been going on for how many years? I havent seen many > steps towards actually *merging* its functionality - you insist > on doing your own random thing, which is different in random > ways. Yes, some of those random ways may in fact be better than > what we have upstream - would you be interested in filtering > those out and pushing them upstream? I certainly would like to > see that happen. > > We want to pick the best features, and throw away current > upstream code in favor of superior out of tree code - this > concept of letting crap sit alongside each other when people do > care i cannot agree with. Mathieu, a good explaination of what lttng has that the in-kernel tracing and perf doesn't have would be a good place to start. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
