Re: [PATCH] perf lock: clean the options for perf record

[Hitoshi Mitake]

On 2011å03æ04æ 23:37, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:41 +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>
> > BTW, how do you think about the idea of exporting data in
> > python (or other neutral) expression from procfs? I feel it is a
> > good idea. Communicating with unified format between user space and
> > kernel space will reduce lots of parsing overhead. Is this too
> > aggressive or insane?
>
> As I mentioned in another email, I have no problem with an easy to parse
> file. But I will aggressively NAK any "python" or other scripting
> language. I'm sure I would get the same response if I were to have the
> kernel outputting perl language ;)
>
> I would be OK if we have two files similar to stat and status, where one
> format is human readable, the other is for parsing.
>
> Thus, the only acceptable language that should come out of the kernel is
> English.
>
> -- Steve

OK. As you say, the big confusion might be occur if there are lots of
format like python or perl (and they have several versions).

The reason why I posted the patch is that I like the idea of
/proc/config.gz. Providing the data from kernel in specific syntax
is so smart, so I followed it :)
--
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/