From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:30:21 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down Message-ID: <20070607073021.GA21139@elte.hu> References: <1181165656.7133.23.camel@dix> <20070606230641.GA11592@elte.hu> <46674EA9.9090601@de.ibm.com> <20070607044017.GA3828@gnuppy.monkey.org> <4667ADDA.2070202@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4667ADDA.2070202@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Martin Peschke Cc: "Bill Huey (hui)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, jbaron@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Martin Peschke wrote: > Bill Huey (hui) wrote: > > There are roughly about 400 locks in a normal kernel for a desktop. The > > list is rather cumbersome anyways so, IMO, it really should be handled > > by parsing tools, etc... There could be more properties attached to each > > lock especially if you intend to get this to work on -rt which need more > > things reported. > > Adding stuff to an already wide table in a readable fashion is more > difficult than making a list longer. > > Do mean I might submit this stuff for -rt? Firstly, submit cleanup patches that _do not change the output_. If you have any output changes, do it as a separate patch, ontop of the cleanup patch. Mixing material changes and cleanups into a single patch is a basic patch submission mistake that will only earn you NACKs. Ingo