On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org> wrote: > Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> writes: >> Yep, >> I think it does make sense to share the implementation, but we need to find >> resonable way to do so. > > I doubt this will be very popular with the kernel community, which > prefers self contained code.
Won't be surprised if there are objections .. > > Also the interface doesn't change that often or does it? As FDO gains popularity, the profile coverage code will change faster than people may think. To quote some potential ones -- lightweight ipo, path profiling, call trace profiling etc. > > The current kernel code is for gcc 3. That could be simply > replaced with a modern gcc 4 interface. Rong's approach will let kernel get coverage + FDO support almost for free -- there is no need for kernel to maintain something is basically not maintainable. Thanks, David > > -Andi > > -- > a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only >
