Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...>, <hch@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...>, Prasanna S Panchamukhi <prasanna@...>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...>, Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...>, David S. Miller <davem@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr@...>, Philippe Elie <phil.el@...>, William L. Irwin <wli@...>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>, Christoph Lameter <christoph@...>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...>
No, that's horrible.
Also, in general, why do people want to have an "instrumentation" thing?
Yes, you can put random things into the same box, but that doesn't make
them be the same thing. Personally, I don't think "instrumentation" is
very useful at all. I consider "profiling" and "markers" to be two
fundamentally different things, and putting them both in the same box does
not make them any more similar.
Yes, technically they are both "instrumentation", but hey, technically the
VM and the VFS layer are both "infrastructure", but we don't put *those*
in a "infrastructure" subdirectory.
In other words, the fact that two different things share some attribute
does not mean that they should be collapsed together by that attribute,
does it?
I think "instrumentation" was/is a particularly bad thing to group things
by. It doesn't actually tell you anything about the thing, and it's not
even true that some people are interested in "instrumentation" and others
aren't.
For example: I think profiling support is something REALLY FUNDAMENTAL.
It's something each and every developer should generally care about, and
OProfile should be considered an indispensable tool for any developer, on
par with something like gdb.
In contrast, we should *not* expect most people to do any kernel markers
etc. That's a very esoteric thing.
So I actually think that the current Kconfig.instrumentation should be
*removed*. Rather than adding more groupings based on that fundamentally
flawed premise of false commonality.
Linus
-
