linux-kernel - Re: Fix powerTOP regression with 2.6.39-rc5

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]

Message-ID: <4DD2771E.70106@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2011 07:24:46 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
	Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: Fix powerTOP regression with 2.6.39-rc5



On 05/17/11 05:19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:15 -0700, Michael Rubin wrote:
> 
>> What is the plan for customers going forward? Is it going to involve
>> removing ftrace in favor for perf? Removing perf in favor for ftrace?
>> We love perf and don't want to see it go away either.  We tend to use
>> the two systems differently. Do customers basically have to wait a few
>> years to see not only which system wins but which ones stays on top?
> 
> My plan is:
> 
> 1) get libperf.so out for user tools to use.

libparsevent or libperf? If you really meant libperf will it be a
superset of the event parsing -- like the inclusion of the plugins infra?

David

> 
> 2) Start hacking on code again :)
> 
> But I'll make sure that this will not be a burden on Google. There's no
> reason that Google should be punished for using something that is
> mainline, and using the proper ABIs. The code in ftrace is very flexible
> and tools that use ftrace should still work even if we make internal
> changes.
> 
> I'll work closely with you to make sure that Google's tools will always
> work with future kernels.
> 
>>
>> I apologize if this is obvious to others but I am confused.
> 
> No need to apologize, it's a very confusing situation.
> 
> -- Steve
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
--
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/