From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <46697ED4.3050403@de.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:07:48 +0200 From: Martin Peschke MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down References: <1181165656.7133.23.camel@dix> <20070606230641.GA11592@elte.hu> <46674EA9.9090601@de.ibm.com> <1181198376.7348.202.camel@twins> <4667ACC3.60009@de.ibm.com> <20070607072720.GA19976@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070607072720.GA19976@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbaron@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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