linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task

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, 5 Dec 2011 15:17:49 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules

* Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:07:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 14:14 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > Greg, why are you merging this crap anyway? Aren't there enough tracer
> > thingies around already?
> 
> I don't know, is there?
> 
> There's some reason the distros, and users, still use lttng, 
> so I'm guessing that it fits the needs of quite a few people.

Same goes for a whole lot of other crap that distros are 
carrying. Would we want to merge a different CPU scheduler or 
the 4g:4g patch or a completely new networking stack into 
drivers/staging/? I don't think so.

I.e. putting LTTNG into drivers/staging/ will not really solve 
anything - and in may in fact delay any sane technical 
resolution:

There's a difference between a driver that has to go into 
drivers/staging/ because nobody cares enough [and the driver 
isnt high quality enough yet], and a core kernel feature that we 
DO care about and which HAS BEEN REJECTED IN ITS FORM.

> That's why I'm merging it, if that the in-kernel stuff 
> obsoletes lttng, great, let me, and the distros know.

I'm NAK-ing the LTTNG driver really, as it's a workaround for a 
core kernel NAK.

Mathieu, please work with the tracing folks who DO care about 
this stuff. It's not like there's a lack of interest in this 
area, nor is there a lack of willingness to take patches. What 
there is a lack of is your willingness to actually work on 
getting something unified, integrated to users...

LTTNG has been going on for how many years? I havent seen many 
steps towards actually *merging* its functionality - you insist 
on doing your own random thing, which is different in random 
ways. Yes, some of those random ways may in fact be better than 
what we have upstream - would you be interested in filtering 
those out and pushing them upstream? I certainly would like to 
see that happen.

We want to pick the best features, and throw away current 
upstream code in favor of superior out of tree code - this 
concept of letting crap sit alongside each other when people do 
care i cannot agree with.

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/