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:	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 15:27:09 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:23:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Distros have new CPU schedulers and are still dragging the 4g 
> > split around?  A whole new networking stack would be 
> > interesting, and if self-contained, possible :)
> 
> The point being, there's legitimate reasons to refuse crap to an 
> area that *people care about* in a constructive manner.
> 
> There's no rejection of LTTNG in the "hey, go away, you are 
> doing it wrong" fashion - we are not holding a monopoly on how 
> instrumentation is supposed to be done and we've been wrong 
> before.
> 
> There's a highly constructive, open attitude towards LTTNG and 
> has been for years:
> 
>  " Mathieu, please split it up and integrate/unify it with the 
>    existing instrumentation features of Linux - and if it 
>    replaces existing stuff because an LTTNG component is 
>    superior then so be it. "

Ok, that's fair enough.

Mathieu, will you please work on this?  Or is there some reason you
don't feel this is possible?

> drivers/staging/ is a tool that i support in many (in fact most) 
> cases - but i don't support it if it does harm.
> 
> I'm supposed to say 'no' to extra complexity more often, and 
> this is definitely one of those cases:
> 
> Nacked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> 
> Also obviously NAK to the scheduler symbol export - that alone 
> should tell you that it's not just a "driver" - it deeply hooks 
> into the core kernel...
> 
> Please respect the NAK.

Will do, I'll go delete it from the staging-next tree now.

greg k-h
--
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/