* 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/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/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/
