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

    * Roman Zippel <> 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 <> 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

    > 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>)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-17 23:35    [W:0.024 / U:5.992 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site