> Mathieu,
>
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > * Thomas Gleixner (
tglx@linutronix.de) wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > The requirement list has been beaten to death several times already
> > > along with the various options of trace formats, so we really are at
> > > the point where you folks need to sit down and come up with real code
> > > which can be discussed and improved on a technical base.
> >
> > I understand and share your frustration about things having been standing still
> > for way too long.
> >
> > In order to get things rolling, I hereby append my trace format proposal as RFC.
> > I did implement the core elements of it already in the BabelTrace trace
> > converter project, so it's not one of these dreaded "design by committee without
> > any understanding of the practicality aspects" standards. I try make sure it
> > translates to something realistic and useful.
> >
> > Feedback is welcome, thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > RFC: Common Trace Format Proposal for Linux (v1.1)
>
> Groan. Did you read what I wrote ?
>
> > > ... so we really are at
> > > the point where you folks need to sit down and come up with real code
> > > which can be discussed and improved on a technical base.
>
> Your reaction on this is to send yet another proposal, which has not
> really anything new in it.
>
> What we are waiting for is a sensible incremental patch series, which
> extends or replaces functionality in the existing perf ABI up to the
> point, where we can eventually see the need for a sensible
> replacement. That's the way we work, not with tons of proposals.
