| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20080223124234.665c01a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:42:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Soeren Sandmann <sandmann@...mi.au.dk> Cc: John Levon <levon@...ementarian.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool On 23 Feb 2008 21:15:52 +0100 Soeren Sandmann <sandmann@...mi.au.dk> wrote: > It was only later I tried oprofile and found it not only much more > difficult to use, but also much less useful when I did get it to work. Could we please be very careful to not conflate oprofile's kernel support with oprofile userspace? For the purposes of this discussion the distinction is most important. I _assume_ you're referring to oprofile userspace which I agree is user-hostile. It is a rich area for others to improve upon. In so doing they might even have a need to change oprofile's kernel code. But simply giving up and going off and implementing some parallel kernel code is an utter last resort and should only be done after it has been shown that the current kernel code is unfixable. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists