[lttng-dev] [PATCH 09/11] sched: export task_prio to GPL modules

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:23:54AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Same goes for a whole lot of other crap that distros are 
> > > carrying. Would we want to merge a different CPU scheduler 
> > > or the 4g:4g patch or a completely new networking stack into 
> > > drivers/staging/? I don't think so.
> > 
> > Distros have new CPU schedulers and are still dragging the 4g 
> > split around?  A whole new networking stack would be 
> > interesting, and if self-contained, possible :)
> 
> The point being, there's legitimate reasons to refuse crap to an 
> area that *people care about* in a constructive manner.
> 
> There's no rejection of LTTNG in the "hey, go away, you are 
> doing it wrong" fashion - we are not holding a monopoly on how 
> instrumentation is supposed to be done and we've been wrong 
> before.
> 
> There's a highly constructive, open attitude towards LTTNG and 
> has been for years:
> 
>  " Mathieu, please split it up and integrate/unify it with the 
>    existing instrumentation features of Linux - and if it 
>    replaces existing stuff because an LTTNG component is 
>    superior then so be it. "

Ok, that's fair enough.

Mathieu, will you please work on this?  Or is there some reason you
don't feel this is possible?

> drivers/staging/ is a tool that i support in many (in fact most) 
> cases - but i don't support it if it does harm.
> 
> I'm supposed to say 'no' to extra complexity more often, and 
> this is definitely one of those cases:
> 
> Nacked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte.hu>
> 
> Also obviously NAK to the scheduler symbol export - that alone 
> should tell you that it's not just a "driver" - it deeply hooks 
> into the core kernel...
> 
> Please respect the NAK.

Will do, I'll go delete it from the staging-next tree now.

greg k-h