vs and zam, please comment on what we get from our profiler and spinlock
debugger that the standard tools don't supply. I am sure you have a
reason, but now is the time to articulate it.
We would like to keep the disabled code in there until we have a chance
to prove (or fail to prove) that cycle detection can be resolved
effectively, and then with a solution in hand argue its merits.
Hans
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Also I'm not sure things like comming with an own profiler
>
>and spinlock debugger are really acceptable. At least this stuff
>should be removed too.
>
>-Andi
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
