Re: [RFC] Instrumentation (was Re: 2.6.11-rc1-mm1)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 18:57 -0500, Karim Yaghmour wrote: 
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > If we add another hardwired implementation then we do not have said
> > benefits.
> 
> Please stop handwaving. Folks like Andrew, Christoph, Zwane, Roman,
> and others actually made specific requests for changes in the code.
> What makes you think you're so special that you think you are
> entitled to stay on the side and handwave about concepts.

So the points you added to your todo list which were brought up by me
are worthless ?

I'm not handwaving. I started this RFC to move the discussion into a
general discussion about instrumentation. A couple of people are
seriosly interested to do this. If you are not interested then ignore
the thread, but you're way not in a position to tell me to shut up.

You turned this thread into your LTT prayer wheel.

Roman pointed out your unwillingness to create a common framework
before. But I have to disagree with him in one point. It's not amazing,
it's annoying.

> If there is a limitation with the code, please present actual
> snippets that need to be changed and suggest alternatives. That's
> what everyone else does on this list.

I pointed you to actually broken code and you accused me of throwing
mud.

> Save the bandwidth 

Please remove me from cc, it's a good start to save bandwidth.

> and start cleaning.

Yes, I did already start cleaning

cat ../broken-out/ltt* | patch -p1 -R

tglx


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