linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Having perf use libparsevent.a

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:	Sat, 6 Aug 2011 08:48:47 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Having perf use libparsevent.a


* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 11:24:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > By keeping the code separate from perf, made the transition from 
> > > trace-cmd to tools much easier. I've wasted too many days trying to 
> > > get other ways working, and I don't want to rewrite perf to do so.
> > 
> > But we want to move tools together, not further apart. Every code 
> > activity i see from you is trying to tear apart instrumentation 
> > tooling - while previously you agreed that it should be unified. So 
> > why not do tools/perf/lib/ as you agreed before?
> > 
> > I'm really not interested in seeing the libdrm/libdri mess repeated. 
> > Libraries have their uses when there's some very important external 
> > interface, but here it's actively harmful as it complicates and 
> > hardcodes APIs into ABIs that are clearly not finished yet.
> > 
> > Really, lets not be stupid here.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> 
> The trace events format is a general interface that not only perf 
> and trace-cmd use but also powertop and pytimechart, and may be 
> others?
> 
> And given the breakage we had with powertop, for example, that 
> broke because it was relying on an ad-hoc static layout of the 
> trace event, or pytimechart that relies(ed?) on the event string 
> output, I think that library is needed outside perf.

That is why i suggested libperf.so - this will handle the cases you 
mention, plus any future case - while still allow more flexible code 
sharing between libperf and the perf tools themselves.

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/