From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932316Ab1LEOTj (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:19:39 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42943 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932188Ab1LEOTi (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Dec 2011 09:19:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:17:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Greg KH Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mathieu Desnoyers , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules Message-ID: <20111205141749.GC28866@elte.hu> References: <1322775683-8741-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1322775683-8741-10-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1322776568.4699.52.camel@twins> <20111201221404.GC3365@kroah.com> <1322780830.4699.62.camel@twins> <20111201231751.GA4961@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111201231751.GA4961@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:07:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 14:14 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > greg k-h > > > > Greg, why are you merging this crap anyway? Aren't there enough tracer > > thingies around already? > > I don't know, is there? > > There's some reason the distros, and users, still use lttng, > so I'm guessing that it fits the needs of quite a few people. Same goes for a whole lot of other crap that distros are carrying. Would we want to merge a different CPU scheduler or the 4g:4g patch or a completely new networking stack into drivers/staging/? I don't think so. I.e. putting LTTNG into drivers/staging/ will not really solve anything - and in may in fact delay any sane technical resolution: There's a difference between a driver that has to go into drivers/staging/ because nobody cares enough [and the driver isnt high quality enough yet], and a core kernel feature that we DO care about and which HAS BEEN REJECTED IN ITS FORM. > That's why I'm merging it, if that the in-kernel stuff > obsoletes lttng, great, let me, and the distros know. I'm NAK-ing the LTTNG driver really, as it's a workaround for a core kernel NAK. Mathieu, please work with the tracing folks who DO care about this stuff. It's not like there's a lack of interest in this area, nor is there a lack of willingness to take patches. What there is a lack of is your willingness to actually work on getting something unified, integrated to users... LTTNG has been going on for how many years? I havent seen many steps towards actually *merging* its functionality - you insist on doing your own random thing, which is different in random ways. Yes, some of those random ways may in fact be better than what we have upstream - would you be interested in filtering those out and pushing them upstream? I certainly would like to see that happen. We want to pick the best features, and throw away current upstream code in favor of superior out of tree code - this concept of letting crap sit alongside each other when people do care i cannot agree with. Thanks, Ingo