lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

* Martin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> Admittedly this gives you the top five contention points, [...]

if the infrastructure your are advocating does not allow us to keep the
existing output then it's simply not flexible enough. Why on earth are
you even arguing about this? A "cleanup" should not change the output,
simple as that. Do a patch that has the _same_ output and then we can
see whether it's a good patch. You made the same mistake with your
/proc/timer_stats cleanups. I dont like NACK-ing patches but you seem to
be missing the basic precondition of cleanups: no functional effect to
the code, and certainly no change in output.

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-07 09:31    [W:0.079 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site