linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:49:15 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules


* Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:23:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> 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?

Mathieu, any update on this? I don't want the LTTNG goodies to 
drop on the floor - we just have to integrate them properly.

If you 100% disagree with how specific things are done upstream 
right now then don't hold back: just replace existing mechanisms 
- that gives a starting point to discuss what the best way is 
forward.

> > 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 <mingo@...e.hu>
> > 
> > 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.

Thanks Greg!

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/