Re: Fix powerTOP regression with 2.6.39-rc5
From: David Ahern
Date: Tue May 17 2011 - 09:24:59 EST
On 05/17/11 05:19, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 00:15 -0700, Michael Rubin wrote:
>> What is the plan for customers going forward? Is it going to involve
>> removing ftrace in favor for perf? Removing perf in favor for ftrace?
>> We love perf and don't want to see it go away either. We tend to use
>> the two systems differently. Do customers basically have to wait a few
>> years to see not only which system wins but which ones stays on top?
> My plan is:
> 1) get libperf.so out for user tools to use.
libparsevent or libperf? If you really meant libperf will it be a
superset of the event parsing -- like the inclusion of the plugins infra?
> 2) Start hacking on code again :)
> But I'll make sure that this will not be a burden on Google. There's no
> reason that Google should be punished for using something that is
> mainline, and using the proper ABIs. The code in ftrace is very flexible
> and tools that use ftrace should still work even if we make internal
> I'll work closely with you to make sure that Google's tools will always
> work with future kernels.
>> I apologize if this is obvious to others but I am confused.
> No need to apologize, it's a very confusing situation.
> -- Steve
> 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/
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/