From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Martin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jbaron@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:27:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070607072720.GA19976@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4667ACC3.60009@de.ibm.com>
* Martin Peschke <mp3@de.ibm.com> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-07 7:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-06 21:34 [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down Martin Peschke
2007-06-06 23:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-07 0:17 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 4:40 ` Bill Huey
2007-06-07 7:03 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-07 8:56 ` Bill Huey
2007-06-11 11:26 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-08 16:27 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 6:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-07 6:59 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 7:27 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-06-08 16:07 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-06 23:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-07 0:21 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 7:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-08 17:00 ` Martin Peschke
[not found] ` <1181322460.5728.2.camel@lappy>
[not found] ` <46698F7F.4090407@de.ibm.com>
2007-06-08 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-08 17:37 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-08 17:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-11 10:31 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-08 17:13 ` Martin Peschke
2007-06-07 8:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-07 10:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-11 12:20 ` Martin Peschke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070607072720.GA19976@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mp3@de.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox