Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open when supported

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 09:09, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:59, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >> > * Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >> >> > * Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >> >> >> > * Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 08:05, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> > * Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> 
> > Anyway, i have no time to teach you about kernel mainteinance basics 
> > really so i probably wont follow up on future emails.
> 
> So yet again you resort to personal attacks when someone objects to the
> world according to Ingo. [...]

You snipped out the proper context. The thing i object to above was 
a technically completely unacceptable solution proposed by Mike:

|  #ifndef __NR_perf_counter_open
|  # error sorry, your arch has not hooked up perf_counter_open syscall yet
|  #endif
|
| is completely unacceptable. We dont propagate build failures via 
| user-enable config options, we never did. There's a lot of people 
| doing randconfig builds - if it randomly failed due to your 'fix' 
| that would upset a lot of testing for no good reason.

and that opinion still holds. (If you disagree then go try to push 
such a solution upstream, and please share with me the various 
replies you will get, it will be an entertaining read.)

Mike made valid technical points later on though and i replied to 
them and accepted most of them. We can certainly annotate out that 
warning message from scripts/checksyscalls.sh.

	Ingo