Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932298AbWIOVpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:45:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932301AbWIOVpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:45:55 -0400 Received: from opersys.com ([64.40.108.71]:5900 "EHLO www.opersys.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932298AbWIOVpy (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:45:54 -0400 Message-ID: <450B2170.5040508@opersys.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:56:00 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour Reply-To: karim@opersys.com Organization: Opersys inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060804 Fedora/1.0.4-0.5.1.fc5 SeaMonkey/1.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Roman Zippel , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Paul Mundt , Jes Sorensen , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tom Zanussi , ltt-dev@shafik.org, Michel Dagenais Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 References: <20060915142836.GA9288@localhost.usen.ad.jp> <450ABE08.2060107@opersys.com> <1158332447.5724.423.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060915111644.c857b2cf.akpm@osdl.org> <1158348954.5724.481.camel@localhost.localdomain> <450B0585.5070700@opersys.com> <1158351780.5724.507.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060915204812.GA6909@elte.hu> <450B1864.5060401@opersys.com> <20060915211550.GB11291@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060915211550.GB11291@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1760 Lines: 39 Ingo Molnar wrote: > with all due respect, do you realize the possibility that this > resistance might be a genuine technical opinion on my part that is > driven by the quality of the code being offered and by the conceptual > problems static tracing introduces in the future, as i see them? Wait. What I said could not possibly apply to comments you, or anybody else for that matter, made within this thread. What I said refers to events and threads which have long since passed. The "resistance" I allude to is that faced by ltt early on and for as long as several parties were actively involved in trying to standardize on it. I'm merely trying to explain the current status of this: several teams in "apparent" competition one another. > " and instead use their corporate bodyweight to pressure/seduce kernel > developers working for them into pushing their new great [...] " > > could possibly be total, utter nonsense? Please read this in the above context -- passed events. In as far as my understanding of events as I was part of them, this was the best I made of the decision-making thought process at a managerial level. And I do not wish to substantiate that nor was this meant as a personal attack against any person or organization. Everyone acted to the best of their knowledge of the facts at the time and I cannot fault them for that. I disagreed and was disappointed, obviously, but that's mine to bear. Put simply: all parties involved would actually wish things were different. Karim - 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/