linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

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:	Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:23:45 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karim@...rsys.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108


* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > For example people wanted pluggable (runtime and/or compile time CPU 
> > scheduler in the kernel. This was rejected (IIRC by Linus, Andrew, 
> > Ingo, and myself). No doubt it would have been useful for a small 
> > number of people but it was decided that it would split testing and 
> > development resources. The STREAMS example is another one.
> 
> Comparing it to STREAMS is an insult and Ingo should be aware of this. 
> :-(

so in your opinion Nick's mentioning of STREAMS is an insult too? I 
certainly do not understand Nick's example as an insult. Is STREAMS now 
a dirty word to you that no-one is allowed to use as an example in 
kernel maintanance discussions?

Let me recap how I mentioned STREAMS for the first time: it was simply 
the best example i could think of when you asked the following question:

> > Why don't you leave the choice to the users? Why do you constantly 
> > make it an exclusive choice? [...]
>
> [...]
>
> the user of course does not care about kernel internal design and 
> maintainance issues. Think about the many reasons why STREAMS was 
> rejected - users wanted that too. And note that users dont want 
> "static tracers" or any design detail of LTT in particular: what they 
> want is the _functionality_ of LTT.

(see <20060915231419.GA24731@...e.hu> for the full context. Tellingly, 
that point of mine you have left unreplied too.)

btw., you still have not retracted or corrected your false suggestion 
that "concessions" or a "compromise" were possible and you did not 
retract or correct your false accusation that i "dont want to make 
them":

> It's impossible to discuss this with you, because you're absolutely 
> unwilling to make any concessions. What am I supposed to do than it's 
> very clear to me, that you don't want to make any compromise anyway?

while, as i explained it before, such a concession simply does not exist 
- so i am not in the position to "make such a concession". There are 
only two choices in essence: either we accept a generic static tracer, 
or we reject it.

(see <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609171744570.6761@...ub.home>)

	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/