From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765330AbXLMVdA (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:33:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765223AbXLMVcZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:32:25 -0500 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:47174 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755469AbXLMVcX (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:32:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:32:02 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Next patches for the 2.6.25 queue Message-Id: <20071213133202.11374f54.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20071213144642.GA7800@Krystal> References: <20071213144642.GA7800@Krystal> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:46:42 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I would like to post my next patches in a way that would make it as > easy for you and the community to review them. Currently, the patches > that have really settled down are : > > * For 2.6.25 > > - Text Edit Lock > - Looks-good-to Ingo Molnar. > - Immediate Values > - Redux version, asked by Rusty > > * For 2.6.25 ? > > Another patchset that is technically ok (however Rusty dislikes the > complexity inherent to the algorithms required to be reentrant wrt NMI > and MCE, although it's been reviewed by the community for months). I > have also replyed to Ingo's concerns about effeciency of my approach > compared to dtrace by providing numbers, but he has not replyed yet. > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg238317.html > > - Markers use Immediate Values > > * Maybe for 2.6.26 ... > > Once we have this, and the instrumentation (submitted as RFC in the past > weeks), in the kernel, the only architecture dependent element that will > be left is the LTTng timestamping code. > > And then, from that point, the following patchset is mostly > self-contained and stops modifying code all over the kernel tree. It > is the LTTng tracer. > > Trying to improve my approach : I guess that submitting at most 15 > patches at a time (each 1-2 days), against the -mmotm tree, would be the > way to do it ? > Just for some context, I have... - 1,400-odd open bugzilla reports - 719 emails saved away in my emailed-bug-reports folder, all of which need to be gone through, asking originators to retest and re-report-if-unfixed. - A big ugly email titled "2.6.24-rc5-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.23" in my inbox. All of which makes it a bit inappropriate to be thinking about intrusive-looking new features. Ho hum. Just send me the whole lot against rc5-mm1 and I'll stick it in there and we'll see what breaks.