lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: What is the right practice to get new code upstream( was Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0)
From
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:57:02 +0800
> Luming Yu <luming.yu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I need to know what the right practice is to get your attention to
>> accept a new tool upstream like this one.
>
> Seems that you have some good feedback from Arnd to be looking at.  I'm
> usually the guy for mysterious misc stuff such as this, so please cc me
> on future revisions.

Andrew, Thanks a lot :-) The community is really helpful after find
right people for right things.

>
> The name "hw_test" and "HW_TEST" is too vague.  The topic "testing
> hardware" is very broad, and this module only touches a small fraction
> of it, so please think up a far more specific name.
>

I'm working on Version 2 of the tool which would be renamed to
cpu_latency_test, or simply misc_latency_test?

thanks!!! /l
--
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: 2012-06-14 12:01    [W:0.082 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site