Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/8] Having perf use libparsevent.a

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 11:24:09PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > By keeping the code separate from perf, made the transition from 
> > > trace-cmd to tools much easier. I've wasted too many days trying to 
> > > get other ways working, and I don't want to rewrite perf to do so.
> > 
> > But we want to move tools together, not further apart. Every code 
> > activity i see from you is trying to tear apart instrumentation 
> > tooling - while previously you agreed that it should be unified. So 
> > why not do tools/perf/lib/ as you agreed before?
> > 
> > I'm really not interested in seeing the libdrm/libdri mess repeated. 
> > Libraries have their uses when there's some very important external 
> > interface, but here it's actively harmful as it complicates and 
> > hardcodes APIs into ABIs that are clearly not finished yet.
> > 
> > Really, lets not be stupid here.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	Ingo
> 
> The trace events format is a general interface that not only perf 
> and trace-cmd use but also powertop and pytimechart, and may be 
> others?
> 
> And given the breakage we had with powertop, for example, that 
> broke because it was relying on an ad-hoc static layout of the 
> trace event, or pytimechart that relies(ed?) on the event string 
> output, I think that library is needed outside perf.

That is why i suggested libperf.so - this will handle the cases you 
mention, plus any future case - while still allow more flexible code 
sharing between libperf and the perf tools themselves.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/