Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:03:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Joe Mario <jmario@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>,
        dzickus@redhat.com, dsahern@gmail.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        efault@gmx.de, paulus@samba.org, rfowles@redhat.com,
        eranian@google.com,
        "acme@kernel.org >> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@kernel.org>,
        mingo@redhat.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        "wangnan0@huawei.com >> Wang Nan" <wangnan0@huawei.com>,
        fowles@inreach.com, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        andi@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: [Questions] perf c2c: What's the current status of perf c2c?
Message-ID: <20151209140357.GO6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <5667A8D4.4090601@huawei.com>
 <20151209080440.GA17211@krava.brq.redhat.com>
 <20151209093402.GM6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <1891297138.17374838.1449658964938.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1891297138.17374838.1449658964938.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 695
Lines: 16

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:02:44AM -0500, Joe Mario wrote:
> Yes, that would be a great enhancement,

This is hardly new though; I've outlined the very same the first time
the c2c thing got mentioned.

> but is it any reason to hold up the current implementation?

I just wonder how much of c2c is still useful once we get it done
proper. And once such a tool is out there, its hard to kill, leaving us
with a maintenance burden we could do without.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/