Ingo, On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Stephane, >> >> Given the concerns expressed by Ingo, I have dropped the perfmon3 >> tree from linux-next until they have been addressed. Hopefully that >> will not be loo long. Let us all know how we can help with this. > > Thanks, we'll try to finish the review ASAP (today+tomorrow) so that > it can be added back in 1-2 days. And it's sensible to keep it in the > separate perfmon3 tree as well (as long as it's not rebased) - that's > a convenient initial structure for new features. > I think I am missing something about rebasing. Are you saying you want the patches to stay with the same tree until it is reviewed thoroughly? So far I have used Linus' v2.6.28-rcXX tree as it evolves at a pace I can follow. Is that okay? > ( and the powerpc bits would be nice as well, they seem to be missing > from the current lineup - the more architectures keep hitting on > that code, the better the end result. ) > The fully featured perfmon3 code (available as a branch of my kernel.org tree) has all the architectures we currently support. There is some overlap with the patchset posted on LKML. I focused on x86 because this is the key architecture with a lot of demands. It should not be very difficult to derive the powerpc patchset from the fully featured git branch, same goes for MIPS, and SPARC. IA-64 will be a bit more challenging because they already have a much older version of perfmon2. Switching IA-64 to perfmon3 now, would cause lots of perfmon2 features to disappear (e.g., sampling, system-wide). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
