Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:07:48 +0200 | From | Martin Peschke <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > if the infrastructure your are advocating does not allow us to keep the > existing output then it's simply not flexible enough.
Let's be precise. If "keep the existing output" means any format change is unacceptible to you, then I broke things. If it means that my method provides data equivalent in respect of content, then I didn't break the lock contention output.
> 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.
We got to be careful here. My other proposal was doomed because timerstat became kernel ABI in the meantime. We won't break the kernel ABI. I was late, as simple as that.
The lock contention stuff isn't kernel ABI yet. This is -mm code, stuff intented for a wider audience and discussion. It should be perfectly fine to scrutinize kernel ABI additions before we get beyond the point of no return.
> 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.
I don't see the point of judging something by goals that have not been set. I have advertised my patches as: same purpose, different or generalised method, differences in output format, output equivalent in respect of content, much more code sharing.
Martin
- 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/
| |