Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932300AbWIQPRE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:17:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932305AbWIQPRE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:17:04 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:17850 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932300AbWIQPRC (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:17:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:16:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Thomas Gleixner , karim@opersys.com, 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 In-Reply-To: <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <20060915204812.GA6909@elte.hu> <20060915215112.GB12789@elte.hu> <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> <20060916082214.GD6317@elte.hu> <20060916230031.GB20180@elte.hu> <20060917084207.GA8738@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1417 Lines: 34 Hi, On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > If they are useful and not hurting anyone, why should we? > > FYI, whether it is true that "they not hurting anyone" is one of those > "secondary issues" that I analyzed in great detail in the emails > yesterday, and which you opted not to "further dvelve into": Ingo, you happily still ignore my primary issues, how serious do you expect me to take this? > so at least to me the rule in such a situation is clear: if we have the > choice between two approaches that are useful in similar ways [*] but > one has a larger flexibility to decrease the total maintainance cost, > then we _must_ pick that one. That would assume the choices are mutually exclusive, which you haven't proven at all. To put everything in yet another perspective: We have the kernel full of security hooks, which are likely more invasive than any trace marker ever will be. These security hooks are well hated by a few developers, but we merged them anyway, because they are useful. So the big question is now, why should it be impossible to create and merge a well defined set of markers, which can be used by any tracer? bye, Roman - 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/