Hi Ingo,
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> cool! Please Cc: lkml and Harvey as well so that there's less
>>> overlap in unification work - Harvey spent quite some time unifying
>>> and cleaning up the kprobes code during the past week.
>> Should I rewrite it based on current git tree?
>> My patch includes 3 part of patches.
>> - 2 Bugfix patches (which is not merged yet.)
>> - 2 booster patches (ditto)
>> - 2 unification patches (most of this patches are already done by Harvey's patch)
>
> would it be easier/more robust to first did the unification patches and
> then get the bugfixes and new features in? That would give us your
> bugfixes and new features on both 32-bit and 64-bit at the same time.
As far as I can see, my patches have less #ifdefs than Harvey's.
However, that patch's granularity may be not so good currently.
> feel free to do whichever approach you prefer - but it would be nice to
> preserve the unification and cleanup work done by Harvey.
OK, rewriting will take a while, so I sent a series of patches which I have just now.
> btw., is any of your bugfixes 2.6.24 material?
Yes, I'd like to fix first two bugs in 2.6.24.
Thank you very much,
>
> Ingo
--
Masami Hiramatsu
Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
--
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]
