Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:22:57 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/24] perfmon3: introduction |
| |
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:58:22 -0700 Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:39 am stephane eranian wrote: > > As you know, I have been involved with this project for quite some time > > now. I have been through many ups and downs trying to get this merged > > upstream. So rest assured of my full determination to bring this to the > > point of success. > > I've been following this at a high level since using perfmon on ia64 several > years ago. I have to say I'm impressed that you've put up with all the review > and code churn (which to me often seemed arbitrary) without burning out. > > Honestly I think it sucks that perfmonN isn't upstream yet supporting all the > various architectures you've been working with. You've obviously proven to be > a much more responsive and end-user focused maintainer than several of the > other fly by night profiling infrastructures we currently have in the kernel > (the long abandoned oprofile and perfctr come to mind). > > As I mentioned at KS, I think it's about time we had a single point of contact > for profiling in the kernel, to avoid the massive functional duplication we > have today and make sure some kind of code sharing occurs; seems to me you'd > be a good candidate for that sort of job. > > But regardless, I think it's about time this got merged. Linus? Andrew?
It is several years late. For me the problem has been that we do a lot of review and have lots of discussion but then the trail goes cold for six months and when it all pops up again the code has changed and/or we've all forgotten about it again.
What it needs is a sustained effort to get it over the hump. How's about getting it into linux-next asap and then we all agree to do the re-re-re-review and runtime testing for a 2.6.29 merge?
| |