On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:23:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 :) > > The point being, there's legitimate reasons to refuse crap to an > area that *people care about* in a constructive manner. > > There's no rejection of LTTNG in the "hey, go away, you are > doing it wrong" fashion - we are not holding a monopoly on how > instrumentation is supposed to be done and we've been wrong > before. > > There's a highly constructive, open attitude towards LTTNG and > has been for years: > > " Mathieu, please split it up and integrate/unify it with the > existing instrumentation features of Linux - and if it > replaces existing stuff because an LTTNG component is > superior then so be it. " Ok, that's fair enough. Mathieu, will you please work on this? Or is there some reason you don't feel this is possible? > drivers/staging/ is a tool that i support in many (in fact most) > cases - but i don't support it if it does harm. > > I'm supposed to say 'no' to extra complexity more often, and > this is definitely one of those cases: > > Nacked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > Also obviously NAK to the scheduler symbol export - that alone > should tell you that it's not just a "driver" - it deeply hooks > into the core kernel... > > Please respect the NAK. Will do, I'll go delete it from the staging-next tree now. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
