From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751112AbWEVSNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 14:13:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751115AbWEVSNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 14:13:12 -0400 Received: from smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.211]:61265 "HELO smtp112.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751112AbWEVSNL (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 14:13:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:13:08 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: M?ns Rullg?rd Cc: John Levon , LKML , Linus Torvalds , phil.el@wanadoo.fr, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Is OPROFILE actively maintained? Message-ID: <20060522181308.GA29972@taniwha.stupidest.org> References: <20060520025322.GD9486@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20060521194915.GA2153@taniwha.stupidest.org> <1148298681.17376.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060522151528.GA20960@totally.trollied.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:50:28PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Why should be marked experimental only because of architecture > limits? If the parts that can work, work well, there's no reason to > suggest otherwise. (Speaking as an Alpha owner) The only conclusion I can draw from this is that EXPERIMENTAL has no well defined semantics and as such is essentially pointless. Everyone interprets it differently. I think this is exactly what DaveJ was saying the other day.