From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:01:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:00:52 -0400 Received: from inet.connecttech.com ([206.130.75.2]:19651 "EHLO inet.connecttech.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:00:39 -0400 Message-ID: <0dc301c0ef9d$98d0d260$294b82ce@connecttech.com> From: "Stuart MacDonald" To: "Marcelo Tosatti" Cc: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: VM suggestion... Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:02:51 -0400 Organization: Connect Tech Inc. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Marcelo Tosatti" > The problem is that we _cannot_ base ourselves simply on practical results > from a _limited_ amount of workloads. Also remember the tests we (at least > I do) are benchmarks which try to use all resources all the time upon > completion. Isn't this the point of the X.odd.Y kernels? Spit the stats out into the syslog, along with a message of "If you see these, please mail them along to marcelo@conectiva.com.br and a description of your workload if it's not too much trouble." ..Stu