From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757612Ab2DYJtW (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:49:22 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:11364 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755406Ab2DYJtV (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:49:21 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="133581085" From: Andi Kleen To: Hui Zhu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: KGTP (Linux Kernel debugger and tracer) 20120424 release(doc update)[1/3]code References: <4F96A881.7050507@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:49:19 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4F96A881.7050507@gmail.com> (Hui Zhu's message of "Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:20:01 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hui Zhu writes: Could you please split it down further. a 9kLOC patch is pretty daunting. >>From a quick glance over some focus on simplication would be good: no own allocators (kernel has enough), no own types (that would remove asm), remove optional facilities like the private ring buffer. Some obsolete code like using semaphores vs mutexes. The variable list looks overcomplicated, just use an array? Generally too many macros I would say, try using inlines or removing them. Do you have any rarely used optional features that could be left out a version 1? If yes do that. I'm sure with some effort the 9kLOC could be much less. A patch half the size would be much easier to merge. There are some things that checkpatch will likely warn about. It would be good if you could describe the use case a bit better: this is for the kernel only or also user applications? -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only