Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753944Ab0KKJp4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:45:56 -0500 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:38640 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752591Ab0KKJpy (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:45:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:45:27 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Mathieu Desnoyers cc: Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , David Sharp , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC tracing] Common Trace Format for Linux (v1.1) In-Reply-To: <20101111021614.GA5782@Krystal> Message-ID: References: <20101111004612.GB32564@Krystal> <20101111021614.GA5782@Krystal> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1841 Lines: 49 Mathieu, On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Thomas Gleixner (tglx@linutronix.de) wrote: > [...] > > > The requirement list has been beaten to death several times already > > along with the various options of trace formats, so we really are at > > the point where you folks need to sit down and come up with real code > > which can be discussed and improved on a technical base. > > I understand and share your frustration about things having been standing still > for way too long. > > In order to get things rolling, I hereby append my trace format proposal as RFC. > I did implement the core elements of it already in the BabelTrace trace > converter project, so it's not one of these dreaded "design by committee without > any understanding of the practicality aspects" standards. I try make sure it > translates to something realistic and useful. > > Feedback is welcome, thanks, > > Mathieu > > RFC: Common Trace Format Proposal for Linux (v1.1) Groan. Did you read what I wrote ? > > ... so we really are at > > the point where you folks need to sit down and come up with real code > > which can be discussed and improved on a technical base. Your reaction on this is to send yet another proposal, which has not really anything new in it. What we are waiting for is a sensible incremental patch series, which extends or replaces functionality in the existing perf ABI up to the point, where we can eventually see the need for a sensible replacement. That's the way we work, not with tons of proposals. Thanks, tglx -- 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/