On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:45:12PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote: > On 12/05/2013 03:16 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:50PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote: > [...] > > And adding new features to code that is "dead" and should probably be > > removed isn't a good idea, as I'm sure you can understand. > > I would consider feature additions to be a sign of life. Maybe the > architecture or user interface isn't ideal, but would you suggest just as > quickly for media codec or cryptography hardware support be removed?
No, but I would ask that they be moved to use the same userspace api for the same functionality, and not create custom ones just because "they can". > > How much work is it to incorportate ETM into the perf framework? Don't > > you think that this is a better thing to do overall, instead of having > > duplicating interfaces for the same thing? > > I'm not familiar enough with the ETM hardware (and the ETB, the buffer where > the data is stored) and driver to say. One factor may be whether the perf > events framework would need to be extended for complete functionality or could > be used as-is. How about moving this conversation to the proper mailing list for this type of thing then? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
