lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/11] LTTng-core (basic tracing infrastructure) 0.5.108

* Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> > For example people wanted pluggable (runtime and/or compile time CPU
> > scheduler in the kernel. This was rejected (IIRC by Linus, Andrew,
> > Ingo, and myself). No doubt it would have been useful for a small
> > number of people but it was decided that it would split testing and
> > development resources. The STREAMS example is another one.
>
> Comparing it to STREAMS is an insult and Ingo should be aware of this.
> :-(

so in your opinion Nick's mentioning of STREAMS is an insult too? I
certainly do not understand Nick's example as an insult. Is STREAMS now
a dirty word to you that no-one is allowed to use as an example in
kernel maintanance discussions?

Let me recap how I mentioned STREAMS for the first time: it was simply
the best example i could think of when you asked the following question:

> > Why don't you leave the choice to the users? Why do you constantly
> > make it an exclusive choice? [...]
>
> [...]
>
> the user of course does not care about kernel internal design and
> maintainance issues. Think about the many reasons why STREAMS was
> rejected - users wanted that too. And note that users dont want
> "static tracers" or any design detail of LTT in particular: what they
> want is the _functionality_ of LTT.

(see <20060915231419.GA24731@elte.hu> for the full context. Tellingly,
that point of mine you have left unreplied too.)

btw., you still have not retracted or corrected your false suggestion
that "concessions" or a "compromise" were possible and you did not
retract or correct your false accusation that i "dont want to make
them":

> It's impossible to discuss this with you, because you're absolutely
> unwilling to make any concessions. What am I supposed to do than it's
> very clear to me, that you don't want to make any compromise anyway?

while, as i explained it before, such a concession simply does not exist
- so i am not in the position to "make such a concession". There are
only two choices in essence: either we accept a generic static tracer,
or we reject it.

(see <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609171744570.6761@scrub.home>)

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-17 23:35    [W:0.567 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site