Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:

> On 03/17/10 10:47, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:38:37PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> >> I implemented it on the branch perf/inject of Frederic's
> random-tracing tree.
> >> Because the branch is hottest place of lock and tracing :)
> >
> >
> > Ouch! You shouldn't do this. The patches inside were
> > trials submitted for review and the resulting discussion
> > concluded that the injection must be redesigned.
> 
> Oh, sorry...
> And I'd like to look at redesigning way of inject.
> 
> >
> > More generally I don't recommend you to base your patches
> > on my tree. I use it as a buffer when I send patches
> > for review or for pull requests.
> >
> > The branches inside can be randomly rebased (unless a
> > branch is waiting to be pulled) and they are pretty async
> > with the -tip tree.
> >
> > The hottest and most sync tree on which you should base your patches
> > for perf is:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
> > 	perf/core
> >
> > With that you have best chances to work on a sane and up-to-date
> > base.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> 
> I'll work on tip/perf/core from next time :)

You can also use tip:master for convenience - especially for RFC patches. That 
way you will have the latest and greatest (and tested) branches combined :)

	Ingo