Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760296AbZFKQfM (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:35:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753354AbZFKQfA (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:35:00 -0400 Received: from senator.holtmann.net ([87.106.208.187]:34104 "EHLO mail.holtmann.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751712AbZFKQfA (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:35:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux From: Marcel Holtmann To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Ingo Molnar , "David S. Miller" , Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner In-Reply-To: References: <20090611160329.GA3366@elte.hu> <20090611161714.GA5008@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:34:58 +0200 Message-Id: <1244738098.27363.36.camel@violet> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2204 Lines: 52 Hi Linus, > > Err, no. This adds tons of userspace code into tools/ which > > should not be in the kernel tree but a proper package. > > I disagree. > > We've had tons of cases where we tried to "separate" the user-land code > and the kernel code, in the name of "beauty" of whatever. > > It's almost invariably a disaster. > > Look at oprofile. F*ck me, what a horrid piece of crap. It took literally > months for the user mode tools to catch up and get the patches to support > new functionality into CVS (or is it SVN?), and after that it took even > longer for them to become part of a release and be picked up by > distributions. In fact, I'm not sure it is part of a release even now - I > had to make a bug report to Fedora to get atom and Nehalem support in my > tools: I think they took the unofficial patch. > > Or look at the crazy things we used to do for X. It's going away (slowly), > because some of the most incestuous things are actually just being > integrated into the kernel, and so there's less of the "two broken pieces" > approach, and more of a "one working piece" kind of thing. > > So I'd much rather have kernel tools with the kernel, than have to depend > on some external entity that doesn't really care. so do you expect us to merge stuff like ip, iw, rfkill, crda, the WiMAX tools, the Bluetooth ones and whatever we have that are all have the same issues to be merged into the kernel source code as well. I see no reason this can't be maintained properly outside the kernel source. You will always have bad sheeps and screw-ups, but just putting everything into one single location is not a good idea either. Other subsystems do this well and so could Ingo. Also please consider the distro point of view. All these distros have already a hard time to keep up with the kernel patches etc. It is a lot easier to update a userspace package then having to provide a patches kernel source. Regards Marcel -- 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/