* Andrew Morton ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:46:42 -0500
> Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > I would like to post my next patches in a way that would make it as
> > easy for you and the community to review them. Currently, the patches
> > that have really settled down are :
> >
> > * For 2.6.25
> >
> > - Text Edit Lock
> > - Looks-good-to Ingo Molnar.
> > - Immediate Values
> > - Redux version, asked by Rusty
> >
> > * For 2.6.25 ?
> >
> > Another patchset that is technically ok (however Rusty dislikes the
> > complexity inherent to the algorithms required to be reentrant wrt NMI
> > and MCE, although it's been reviewed by the community for months). I
> > have also replyed to Ingo's concerns about effeciency of my approach
> > compared to dtrace by providing numbers, but he has not replyed yet.
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg238317.html
> >
> > - Markers use Immediate Values
> >
> > * Maybe for 2.6.26 ...
> >
> > Once we have this, and the instrumentation (submitted as RFC in the past
> > weeks), in the kernel, the only architecture dependent element that will
> > be left is the LTTng timestamping code.
> >
> > And then, from that point, the following patchset is mostly
> > self-contained and stops modifying code all over the kernel tree. It
> > is the LTTng tracer.
> >
> > Trying to improve my approach : I guess that submitting at most 15
> > patches at a time (each 1-2 days), against the -mmotm tree, would be the
> > way to do it ?
> >
>
> Just for some context, I have...
>
> - 1,400-odd open bugzilla reports
>
> - 719 emails saved away in my emailed-bug-reports folder, all of which
> need to be gone through, asking originators to retest and
> re-report-if-unfixed.
>
> - A big ugly email titled "2.6.24-rc5-git1: Reported regressions from
> 2.6.23" in my inbox.
>
> All of which makes it a bit inappropriate to be thinking about
> intrusive-looking new features.
>
> Ho hum. Just send me the whole lot against rc5-mm1 and I'll stick it in
> there and we'll see what breaks.
>
Ok,
Hum, the "whole lot" : including or excluding
- instrumentation
- the LTTng tracer ?
I realise that you have a lot of other things on your mind. One of my
goals would be to get LTTng in the -mm tree so it could help you resolve
these bugs. But on the other hand, I don't want to rush things. The
LTTng tracer could benefit of another round of RFC before it is ready
for prime time, but it would definitely be useful as-is in the mm tree.
Mathieu
--
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 [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]
