* Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@gmail.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 10:13 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 11:09:25PM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > > > I think we also want to have a 'perf -s *' kind of thing to get a list 
> > > > of all available language modules.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I knew somebody would point that out (and suggest a better way ;-)  That
> > > all makes sense - I'll make these changes in the next version.
> > 
> > I'm a bit worried about linking two million scripting language into the
> > main perf binary.  Can't we just have seaprate perlperf / pythonperf,
> > rubyperf, awkperf binaries that only contain the scripting support?
> 
> Yeah, that's a good point. [...]

No, we want to keep a single core binary, it has many advantages. Git 
has gone through a very painful conversion from many spread out git-* 
commands back into a central binary. So we avoided that mistake in perf 
from the get go. We are not going to add separate perf-* commands.

ad-hoc extensions using separate perf-* scripts are fine of course and i 
use that myself. But once a facility is part of core perf it wants to 
move into the binary. Especially something as central as scripting 
support.

Thanks,

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