From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754904AbbLIOEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 09:04:05 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:47429 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754769AbbLIOED (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2015 09:04:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:03:57 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Joe Mario Cc: Jiri Olsa , Yunlong Song , dzickus@redhat.com, dsahern@gmail.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, efault@gmx.de, paulus@samba.org, rfowles@redhat.com, eranian@google.com, "acme@kernel.org >> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" , mingo@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jiri Olsa , "wangnan0@huawei.com >> Wang Nan" , fowles@inreach.com, Namhyung Kim , andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: [Questions] perf c2c: What's the current status of perf c2c? Message-ID: <20151209140357.GO6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <5667A8D4.4090601@huawei.com> <20151209080440.GA17211@krava.brq.redhat.com> <20151209093402.GM6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1891297138.17374838.1449658964938.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1891297138.17374838.1449658964938.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 06:02:44AM -0500, Joe Mario wrote: > Yes, that would be a great enhancement, This is hardly new though; I've outlined the very same the first time the c2c thing got mentioned. > but is it any reason to hold up the current implementation? I just wonder how much of c2c is still useful once we get it done proper. And once such a tool is out there, its hard to kill, leaving us with a maintenance burden we could do without.