[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181207072701.5bc564c7@vmware.local.home>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:41:18 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>, ldv@...linux.org,
esyr@...hat.com, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: Allow to block process in syscall tracepoints
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:58:39 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> These patches give no justification *what*so*ever* for why we're doing
> ugly arse things like this. And why does this, whatever this is, need to
> be done in perf?
>
> IOW, what problem are we solving ?
I guess the cover letter should have had a link (or copy) of this:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181128134700.212ed035@gandalf.local.home
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists