From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756254Ab0KJTLt (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:11:49 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42902 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756145Ab0KJTLs (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:11:48 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:11:17 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "Luck, Tony" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mchehab@redhat.com, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Arjan van de Ven , Mathieu Desnoyers Subject: Re: [RFC/Requirements/Design] h/w error reporting Message-ID: <20101110191117.GA30227@elte.hu> References: <20101110101450.GA18481@elte.hu> <1289400056.12418.139.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1289400234.2191.129.camel@laptop> <1289401781.12418.145.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1289403019.2084.17.camel@laptop> <20101110174852.GB4001@elte.hu> <1289412329.12418.177.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1289413460.2084.27.camel@laptop> <20101110184105.GH22410@elte.hu> <1289415645.12418.180.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1289415645.12418.180.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.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 * Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 19:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > We'll need to embark on this incremental path instead of a rewrite-the-world > > thing. As a maintainer my task is to say 'no' to rewrite-the-world approaches - > > and we can and will do better here. > > Thus you are saying that we stick to the status quo, [...] No, i'm saying we dont do new things just for the sake of it being new, without exhausting existing facilities. None of the examples/arguments offered so far seemed to necessiate throwing away existing stuff. > [...] and also ignore the fact that perf was a rewrite-the-world from ftrace to > begin with. No, the thing is that there were no tools and no ABI - perf was mostly about the ABI and about the user-space tooling - ftrace didnt really have that (and oprofile had deep problems). Thanks, Ingo