From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751871Ab1LHX27 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:28:59 -0500 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:57692 "EHLO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750770Ab1LHX24 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:28:56 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: CIUeSAfNxy8KthPSczRpFy9hee96+uZgpMzNLnO92jT6 1323386936 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:27:09 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Mathieu Desnoyers , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules Message-ID: <20111208232709.GA19820@kroah.com> 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> <20111205141749.GC28866@elte.hu> <20111206214446.GD1247@kroah.com> <20111208052354.GC9485@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111208052354.GC9485@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:23:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Greg KH wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Distros have new CPU schedulers and are still dragging the 4g > > split around? A whole new networking stack would be > > interesting, and if self-contained, possible :) > > The point being, there's legitimate reasons to refuse crap to an > area that *people care about* in a constructive manner. > > There's no rejection of LTTNG in the "hey, go away, you are > doing it wrong" fashion - we are not holding a monopoly on how > instrumentation is supposed to be done and we've been wrong > before. > > There's a highly constructive, open attitude towards LTTNG and > has been for years: > > " Mathieu, please split it up and integrate/unify it with the > existing instrumentation features of Linux - and if it > replaces existing stuff because an LTTNG component is > superior then so be it. " Ok, that's fair enough. Mathieu, will you please work on this? Or is there some reason you don't feel this is possible? > drivers/staging/ is a tool that i support in many (in fact most) > cases - but i don't support it if it does harm. > > I'm supposed to say 'no' to extra complexity more often, and > this is definitely one of those cases: > > Nacked-by: Ingo Molnar > > Also obviously NAK to the scheduler symbol export - that alone > should tell you that it's not just a "driver" - it deeply hooks > into the core kernel... > > Please respect the NAK. Will do, I'll go delete it from the staging-next tree now. greg k-h