On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:34:54 -0800 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:Unfortunately I still haven't merged perfmon due to recently-occurring minor conflicts with Tony's ia64 tree and more major recently-occurring conflicts with the x86 tree. There's not really a lot which Stephane can practically do about this - normally I'll just get down and fix stuff like this up. But the impression I get from various people is that the perfmon tree in its present form would not be a popular merge. The impression which people have (and I admit to sharing it) is that there's just too much stuff in there and it might not all be justifiable. But I suspect that people have largely forgotten what is in there, and why it is in there. We really need to get this ball rolling, and that will require a sustained effort from more people than just Stephane. I suppose as a starting point we could yet again review the existing patches, please. People will mainly concentrate upon the changelogging to understand which features are being proposed and why, so that submission should describe these things pretty carefully: what are the features and why do we need each of them. tia. -
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Andi Kleen | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: Possible regression in HTB |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
git: | |
