From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765283AbYHDWRD (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:17:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759979AbYHDWQn (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:16:43 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:46472 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759522AbYHDWQm (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:16:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:16:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Greg KH cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, Greg KH , Justin Forbes , Zwane Mwaikambo , "Theodore Ts'o" , Randy Dunlap , Dave Jones , Chuck Wolber , Chris Wedgwood , Michael Krufky , Chuck Ebbert , Domenico Andreoli , Willy Tarreau , Rodrigo Rubira Branco , Jake Edge , Eugene Teo , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [patch 01/25] ftrace: remove unneeded documentation In-Reply-To: <20080804214627.GA8840@suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20080804203506.816201392@mini.kroah.org> <20080804212932.GA8014@suse.de> <20080804214627.GA8840@suse.de> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:42:20PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > 2.6.26-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > Well, I object to this patch, but I'm sure I'll be ignored. > > Why? There is no ftrace code in the 2.6.26 kernel, so why would we > worry about keeping such documentation up to date, let alone even > present at all? > > Why should this matter? Greg, Don't get me wrong. I agree with the reason to pull it. It is the right thing to do. But still, I don't like it, not because I disagree with it, but simply, I liked the fact that the document made it in before the code. I just sold my 1994 Nissan Sentra because I seldom drove it. It was the right thing to do. But I still don't like the fact that I don't have it anymore. I don't like it. This is a feeling. Nothing to do with being technical. Hence, I will not argue it. I just want it on record that I do not _like_ it. ;-) My objection was only symbolic. -- Steve