Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jun 2012 05:25:44 -0400 | Subject | Re: 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 | Luming Yu <> |
| |
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/
| |