[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130806061932.GA20485@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:19:32 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...radead.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: perf, tools: Move gtk browser into separate perfgtk
executable
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 11:08:57AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> You never replied to the original counter-arguments, such as this one from
> Linus:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/849965
The only thing Linus sais is that it's trivial to generate a subpackage,
and that opofile is a desaster. Both of them are 100% correct but at
the same time entirely miss the point.
Yes, oprofile was and is a desaster, but that has aboslutely nothing to
do with where the code lives.
And yes, it's easy to generate a subpackage, but you still need all the
source tree first. There's a reason why things like X.org got split up
(too fine grained in my opinion, but that's another story).
As said I very much disagree with having the userspace perf tree in the
kernel still, but I've also given up on the fight as I have more
important things to do.
And as said before it has nothing to do with the issue discussed here
right now.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists