Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux
[Posted July 1, 2009 by jake]
| From: |
| Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org> |
| To: |
| Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux |
| Date: |
| Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) |
| Message-ID: |
| <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906111005020.3573@localhost.localdomain> |
| Cc: |
| Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra-AT-chello.nl>,
Al Viro <viro-AT-ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem-AT-davemloft.net>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian-AT-googlemail.com>,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus-AT-samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> So what point is there in keeping it in-tree except making life hell for
> packagers?
Give it up. Packagers can trivially generate their own sub-packages. They
do it all the time. They already do it for the user-mode header files,
extracted from the kernel - something you've worked on yourself.
So your point is clearly bogus, and dishonest.
You haven't actually looked the real problem in the eye, and acknowledged
the disaster that is oprofile. Let's give a _new_ approach a chance, and
see if we can avoid the mistakes of yesteryear this time.
Linus
(
Log in to post comments)
