Peter Zijlstra wrote:What would you think about the basic-hardware events like interruptions, and exceptions?:-) BTW, I also have a question about the maintenance policy of markers. Who will pay a cost for updating (maintaining) those trace points according to changing logic of the kernel? I think that each developer who modifies the kernel has to fix trace points just for removing compile-errors. They can (but don't need to) leave, update or remove the trace points to fit their changes, because they knows their changes precisely, but they don't know why the trace points are there and what information is required. So, trace points should be basically maintained by trace point maintainers who know all about the trace points. is that right? Thanks, Best regards, -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: mhiramat@redhat.com --
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Bart Van Assche | Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Auke Kok | [PATCH] e1000e: test MSI interrupts |
git: | |
