Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754363AbZLAQYI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754288AbZLAQYI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:08 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45001 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754016AbZLAQYG (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 17:23:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Darren Hart Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Sripathi Kodi , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/2] Futex fault injection Message-ID: <20091201162359.GA1079@elte.hu> References: <20091201141642.398e7b7d@sripathi> <20091201103351.GA6685@elte.hu> <1259664883.1697.28.camel@laptop> <20091201125537.GA23382@elte.hu> <4B15414A.9040405@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B15414A.9040405@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 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: 1613 Lines: 43 * Darren Hart wrote: > I don't think the "butt-ugly" argument is enough to reject the patch. It is in my book - i dont ever apply ugly patches intentionally. > It's a fairly subjective metric and I don't think the proposed > solution results in "pretty" code either. In fact the super long > function names and multi-line conditionals are arguably "ugly" (maybe > not "butt-ugly" though). :-) > > However, the arguments are solid and I understand wanting to introduce > a new feature in a particular way. Has there been any work done on > perf event injection up to this point or would this be a completely > new perf feature? Yeah, it would be a brand new one. There's a couple of other usecases as well: - User space logging: apps want to define tracepoints and want to inject events as they happen - mixed properly into the regular perf events flow. - MCE logging: hw faults are so rare that injection is desired to make sure the policy action chain is working properly. - Some of the other fault injection sites could be converted to tracepoints + injection-conditions as well, perhaps. That would give a more programmable interface and a generic event logging framework. So it's nice and important work (and by no means trivial - that comes with the territory) - in case you are interested. Thanks, 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/