Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:43:27 +0200 | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108 |
| |
Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> But equally nobody can demand that a feature go into the upstream >> kernel. Especially not if there is a more flexible alternative >> already available that just requires implementing for their arch. > > I completely agree with you under the condition that these alternatives > were mutually exclusive or conflicting with each other.
Roman,
I don't get this, you are arguing that we should put it in because it doesn't do any damage. First of all it does, by adding a lot of clutter all over the place. Second, if we take that argument, then we should allow anybody to put in anything they want, are you also suggesting we put devfs back in?
Point is that the Linux kernel gets so many proposals, some are good some are bad and some while maybe looking like a good idea at the beginning, show out later to be a bad idea - LTT falls into this category. *However*, it doesn't mean the knowledge and tools that were developed with LTT are bad or useless.
To take another related project, look at relayfs. There was so much noise about it when it was initially pushed, yuck I even remember how it was suggested that printk should be implemented via relayfs. But look at it now, there is no fs/relayfs/* these days. The kernel moved on, used the knowledge optained and provided the feature in a better way - exactly like it is being proposed to do for trace points, by using dynamic probes.
Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |