Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>]

Hi Andi,

This plan makes sense. I will split the "patched in enabled/disable
flags" part into a separate piece (good idea!) and then submit the LTTng
core to Andrew. Christoph's has a good point about wanting a usable
infrastructure to go ini. Regarding your plan, I must argue that
blktrace is not a general purpose tracing infrastructure, but one
dedicated to block io tracing.  Therefore, it makes sense to bring in
the generic infrastructure first and then convert blktrace to it.

Mathieu

* Andi Kleen (andi@firstfloor.org) wrote:
> > If we are looking at current "potential users" that are already in
> > mainline, we could change blktrace to make it use the markers.
> 
> Ok, but do it step by step:
> - split out useful pieces like the "patched in enable/disable flags" 
> and submit them separate with an example user or two 
> [I got a couple of candidates e.g. with some of the sysctls in VM or 
> networking] 
> - post and merge that.
> - don't implement anything initially that is not needed by blktrace
> - post a minimal marker patch together with the blktrace
> conversion for review again on linux-kernel
> - await review comments. This review would not cover the basic
> need of markers, just the specific implementation.
> - then potentially merge incorporate review comments
> - then merge
> - later add features with individual review/discussion as new users in the 
> kernel are added.
> 
> -Andi

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/