On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 01:28:50PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>
> > > After commenting on your first set of patches, I've been using it a little
> > > more. In my use, these debugging messages weren't very helpful because
> > > "pfm_file_ops" can indicate pfm_mmap, pfm_read, pfm_poll, etc. Could
> > > these be changed to be more specific based on the function they're in?
> > >
> > the PFM_DBG() macro adds the CPU, function name and line number to the
> > printed string.
> >
>
> That's not the case in what I currently have in my tree, I'll go back and
> see what I'm missing.
Bizarre. Becuase if you've disabled CONFIG_PERFMON_DEBUG, then all the PFM_DBG()
are removed.
>
> What's the current status of the perfmon2 patchset that Robert's work is
> based on?
Well, I have been hacking on it a lot especially to allow Oprofile and
perfmon2 to co-exist (mutual-exclusion). I am hoping to release something
before I fly to OLS next week. I have started integrating Robert's patches.
I also have to integrate IBM's Cell support patch.
--
-Stephane
-
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]
