linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1

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:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:47:19 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, avi@...hat.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, gorcunov@...il.com, levinsasha928@...il.com,
	asias.hejun@...il.com, prasadjoshi124@...il.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Native Linux KVM tool for 3.1

* Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de> wrote:

> > You know, they said the same thing about oprofile. All you needed 
> > to do was to write few simple shell scripts to make it work. One 
> > of the key features of tools/kvm is 'as little configuration as 
> > possible' and I can assure you that bash alias is really not a 
> > solution for that.
> 
> I like perf. Really. But I still don't see why it wouldn't be able 
> to live in its own tree either.

Is the reason that the people who develop it prefer integration with 
the kernel tree not enough for you?

perf could possibly be ported to other OSs. Maybe some day someone 
will try that. But unless that project actually replaces the perf 
project, or perf developers move out of the kernel en masse due to 
difficulties with the development model i don't see why the project 
would want to move out of the kernel tree.

In fact my observations as a perf maintainer show the exact opposite: 
most perf developers are 100% happy to get their stuff merged and 
upstream ASAP. They do not buffer big patch-queues just to not have 
to deal with an integrated kernel tree. The integrated tree is a 
natural model of development to them and often perf tooling patches 
come mixed with kernel side patches such as new tracepoints or 
cleanups/fixes to related kernel code, so it's all very convenient.

Thanks,

	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/