Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:37:56 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3 |
| |
* Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote: > > > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library. > > > > By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem > > (and I fully understand that). > > > > Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon, > > that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality. > > > > And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating > > that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not > > make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to > > the very thing Linux is about. > > > > What is worse, you defend that: > > > > > Go ask end-users what they think of that? > > > > > > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool. > > > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool. > > > > No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one > > of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable. > > > > Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary > > only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly > > forking over more $$$ for an upgrade? > > > > You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel, > > as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device > > - independent of whether you are aware of that or not. > > I'm sorry, but that is a pretty silly argument. > > By that logic, the kernel module loader should include an in-kernel copy > of gcc and binutils, and the fact that it doesn't proves that the module > loader is little more than a GPL circumvention device - independent of > whether you are aware of that or not. 8-)
i'm not sure how your example applies: the kernel module loader is not an application that needs to be updated to new versions of syscalls. Nor is it a needless duplication of infrastructure - it runs in a completely different protection domain - just to name one of the key differences.
Applications going to complex raw syscalls and avoiding a neutral hw infrastructure library that implements a non-trivial job is quite typical for FOSS-library-shy bin-only apps. The "you cannot infringe what you do not link to at all" kind of defensive thinking.
Ingo
| |