On Dec 2, 2007 1:09 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:02:23AM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > > Hi, > > I just finished removing the sysprof-kmod package from CVS as mandated > > by the new guidelines for F9 and above. > > > > I am now seeking some help to understand what is needed to have again > > the kernel module required for proper operations of the sysprof > > package. > > > > Upstream sources are at: > > http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ > > The upstream kernel is likely to eventually get support for > perfmon2 integrated, but this could really use more work. > It's been in -mm for a while. If there's anything that sysprof > can do that perfmon can't (which would be surprising given > perfmons featuritis) it would useful to talk with the perfmon > developers so we can eventually arrive at an upstreamed solution > and not have to worry about integrating out-of-tree patches. > Thanks Dave, this is an interesting information, so I am CCing the upstream author (just in case he is not subscribed to this list). Now I still wonder what to do here because: 1. it's not sure if this perfmon2 will be in Fedora kernels before F9 ships 2. sysprof has to be adapted to use perfmon2 I mean, it's clear that 1+2 it's the best thing we could come out with, but I'd like to have working sysprof in the repo until that materialize. To this end, please weight in that this is just a single module (one .c and its .h) loaded by the user only when needed. Of course, I can not argue with you about the implications of including this into the kernel package, but I really would like a B plan if we will not have a perfmon enabled kernel+userspace available in time. _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
