From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:27:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down Message-ID: <20070607072720.GA19976@elte.hu> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4667ACC3.60009@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Martin Peschke Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbaron@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Martin Peschke wrote: > Admittedly this gives you the top five contention points, [...] if the infrastructure your are advocating does not allow us to keep the existing output then it's simply not flexible enough. 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. 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. Ingo