Re: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Alan Cox wrote:

> Ar Gwe, 2006-09-15 am 14:39 +0200, ysgrifennodd Roman Zippel:
> > Both points have very strong consequences regarding complexity. Why do you 
> > want to deny me the choice to use something simple, especially since both 
> > solutions are not mutually exclusive and can even complement each other? 
> 
> I don't want to deny you the choice, I just don't want to see
> unneccessary garbage in the base kernel. What you put in your own toilet
> is a private matter. What you leave out in a public place is different.

Now we've already sunken to the toilet level... :-(

> > What's the point in forcing everyone to use a single solution?
> 
> Maintainability ? common good over individual weirdnesses ? Ability for
> people to concentrate on getting one good set of interfaces not twelve
> bad ones ? Consistency for user space ?

Alan, you're making things up without any proof.

Listening to this diatribe against static tracepoints, one could get idea 
they would be something alien, which would polute the source. Well, 
everything can be abused, but good tracepoints are like good 
documentation, nobody wants to write and maintain it, but in the end 
others benefit from it if it exists.

bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/