Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> ...
> I'm impressed of your sudden time constraints awareness. Allowing 8192
> bytes of user event size, string printing with varags and XML tracing
> is not biting you ? 

?  I see no XML in there.

akpm:/usr/src/25> grep -i xml patches/ltt* patches/relayfs*
patches/ltt-core-headers.patch:+#define LTT_CUSTOM_EV_FORMAT_TYPE_XML   3
akpm:/usr/src/25> 

> 
> Haha. If you have eventstamps and timestamps (even the jiffie + event
> based ones) nothing is hard to interpret. I guess the ethereal guys are
> rolling on the floor and laughing. 
> 
> The kernel is not the place to fix your postprocessing problems. Sure
> you have to do more complicated stuff, but you move the burden from
> kernel to a place where it does not hurt.

I thought Karim said that this was a form of data compression.

> 
> Yes, the "you would anyway have to go down the same path we have"
> argument really scares me away from doing so. 
> 
> I don't buy this kind of arguments. 

I do.  When someone has been working on a real-world project for several
years we *need* to understand all the problems which that person
encountered before we can competently review the implementation.  Surely
you've been there before: you throw out all the old stuff, write a new one
and once you've addressed all the warts and corner cases and
weird-but-valid requirements it ends up with the same complexity as the
original.