linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for Intel processors

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091013072901.GA9610@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:29:01 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	eranian@...il.com
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, paulus@...ba.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for
	Intel processors


* stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com> wrote:

> > Spreading them all out into architecture code is the far worse 
> > solution, it creates a fragile distributed monster with repeating 
> > patterns - instead we want a manageable central monster ;-) [We are 
> > also quite good at controlling and shrinking monsters in the core 
> > kernel.]
>
> I don't understand this either.
> Why would architecture specific code be more fragile ?

Because similar code spread out and partly duplicated in 22 
architectures is an order of magnitude less maintainable than
a core library.

	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/