Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:23:45 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |