From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262343AbVGLEhH (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:37:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262340AbVGLEgo (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:36:44 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:49314 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262362AbVGLEgL (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:36:11 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Merging relayfs? References: <17107.6290.734560.231978@tut.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050712022537.GA26128@infradead.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20050711193409.043ecb14.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 12 Jul 2005 06:36:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20050711193409.043ecb14.akpm@osdl.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton writes: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:10:42PM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote: > > > > > > Hi Andrew, can you please merge relayfs? It provides a low-overhead > > > logging and buffering capability, which does not currently exist in > > > the kernel. > > > > While the code is pretty nicely in shape it seems rather pointless to > > merge until an actual user goes with it. > > Ordinarily I'd agree. But this is a bit like kprobes - it's a funny thing > which other kernel features rely upon, but those features are often ad-hoc > and aren't intended for merging. Yes, it's a special case because it's useful for custom debugging hacks. I would be in favour of merging it. -Andi