Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756961AbZJMH3s (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:29:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755079AbZJMH3r (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:29:47 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57702 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754257AbZJMH3q (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:29:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:29:01 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: eranian@gmail.com Cc: David Miller , paulus@samba.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for Intel processors Message-ID: <20091013072901.GA9610@elte.hu> References: <1254911461.26976.239.camel@twins> <19148.30773.350036.411105@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <7c86c4470910070531s8ff0d54xb29c22dd982aa387@mail.gmail.com> <20091007.134626.238756485.davem@davemloft.net> <20091008200839.GA24354@elte.hu> <7c86c4470910081328r24be0f63ha436b008b66077c4@mail.gmail.com> <20091012090515.GA24031@elte.hu> <7c86c4470910130017s72e0b936u3eee0caba00acd22@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7c86c4470910130017s72e0b936u3eee0caba00acd22@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 834 Lines: 22 * stephane eranian wrote: > > Spreading them all out into architecture code is the far worse > > solution, it creates a fragile distributed monster with repeating > > patterns - instead we want a manageable central monster ;-) [We are > > also quite good at controlling and shrinking monsters in the core > > kernel.] > > I don't understand this either. > Why would architecture specific code be more fragile ? Because similar code spread out and partly duplicated in 22 architectures is an order of magnitude less maintainable than a core library. Ingo -- 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/