Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Having perf use libparsevent.a

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 11:24:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > By keeping the code separate from perf, made the transition from 
> > trace-cmd to tools much easier. I've wasted too many days trying to 
> > get other ways working, and I don't want to rewrite perf to do so.
> 
> But we want to move tools together, not further apart. Every code 
> activity i see from you is trying to tear apart instrumentation 
> tooling - while previously you agreed that it should be unified. So 
> why not do tools/perf/lib/ as you agreed before?
> 
> I'm really not interested in seeing the libdrm/libdri mess repeated. 
> Libraries have their uses when there's some very important external 
> interface, but here it's actively harmful as it complicates and 
> hardcodes APIs into ABIs that are clearly not finished yet.
> 
> Really, lets not be stupid here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo

The trace events format is a general interface that not only
perf and trace-cmd use but also powertop and pytimechart, and
may be others?

And given the breakage we had with powertop, for example, that broke
because it was relying on an ad-hoc static layout of the trace event,
or pytimechart that relies(ed?) on the event string output, I think that library
is needed outside perf.