[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D726F6D.4000909@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 02:14:21 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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 2011年03月04日 23:37, 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 ;)
>
> I would be OK if we have two files similar to stat and status, where one
> format is human readable, the other is for parsing.
>
> Thus, the only acceptable language that should come out of the kernel is
> English.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>
OK. As you say, the big confusion might be occur if there are lots of
format like python or perl (and they have several versions).
The reason why I posted the patch is that I like the idea of
/proc/config.gz. Providing the data from kernel in specific syntax
is so smart, so I followed it :)
--
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