linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and move perf on top of TP

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:	Wed, 05 May 2010 11:51:13 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, efault@....de, avi@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org,
	acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and move
 perf on top of TP

On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 11:32 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> > Well, I already utterly hate that x86 can't build with !
> > CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS, also requiring CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS is going the wrong
> > way.
> > 
> > I've always explicitly avoided depending on tracepoints, and I'd very
> > much like to keep it that way.
> 
> I was wondering the other way around - ie. the possibility to make
> perf optional and maybe even as a module which depends on TPs, which
> would be nicer than the current situation and make the code less
> cluttered too. 

I really really hate making perf rely on tracepoints.

--
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/