[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110304144119.GE1972@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 15:41:22 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: clean the options for perf record
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:37:18AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:41 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>
> > BTW, how do you think about the idea of exporting data in
> > python (or other neutral) expression from procfs? I feel it is a
> > good idea. Communicating with unified format between user space and
> > kernel space will reduce lots of parsing overhead. Is this too
> > aggressive or insane?
>
> As I mentioned in another email, I have no problem with an easy to parse
> file. But I will aggressively NAK any "python" or other scripting
> language. I'm sure I would get the same response if I were to have the
> kernel outputting perl language ;)
Same for me.
But even before talking about that, I wonder if doing this is actually needed.
--
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