On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 07:14:57PM +0200, Anca Emanuel wrote:
> @Ten Ts'o: you are sponsored by something like microsoft (joking) ?
> Stop trolling. If you are not familiar with perf, or other tools, save
> your time and do some useful things.
I am quite familiar with perf. A disagreement with ho
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I guess you can do well with a split project as well - my main claim
> is that good compatibility comes *naturally* with integration.
Here I have to disagree; my main worry is that integration makes it
*naturally* easy for people to s
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 10:09:34PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> I guess for perf ABI, "perf test" is the closest thing to a
> specification so if your application is using something that's not
> covered by it, you might be in trouble.
I don't believe there's ever been any guarantee that "perf t
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 09:53:28PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> I'm sure perf developers break the ABI sometimes - that happens
> elsewhere in the kernel as well. However, Ted claimed that perf
> developers use tools/perf as an excuse to break the ABI _on purpose_
> which is something I have har
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:42:57PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > Because it's a stupid, idiotic thing to do.
>
> The discussion is turning into whether or not linux/tools makes sense
> or not. I wish you guys would
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 02:29:45PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> So what do you think about perf then? The amount of code that talks to
> the kernel is much smaller than that of the KVM tool.
I think it's a mess, because it's never clear whether perf needs to be
upgraded when I upgrade the kernel,
On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 01:08:50PM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> perf *is* an exception today.
>
> It might make sense to change that. But IMHO it only makes sense if
> there is a really broad agreement on it and other core stuff moves into
> the kernel too. Then you'll be able to get advanta
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:58:20PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Ted, I'm confused. Making backwards incompatible ABI changes has never
> > been on the table. Why are you bringing it up?
>
> And btw, KVM tool is not a random userspace project - it was designed
> to live in tools/kvm from the begi
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 11:08:10AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I'm quite happy with KVM tool and hope they continue working on it.
> My only real wish is that they wouldn't copy QEMU so much and would
> try bolder things that are fundamentally different from QEMU.
My big wish is that they don'
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 01:32:24PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> It seems there is a misunderstanding. KVM-tool is quite far from been KVM
> replacement (if ever). And what we're doing -- extremely tiny/small HV which
> would help us to debug/test kernel code.
If that's true, then perhaps the
10 matches
Mail list logo
