linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:27:20 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Peschke <mp3@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbaron@...hat.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down

* Martin Peschke <mp3@...ibm.com> wrote:

> Admittedly this gives you the top five contention points, [...]

if the infrastructure your are advocating does not allow us to keep the 
existing output then it's simply not flexible enough. Why on earth are 
you even arguing about this? A "cleanup" should not change the output, 
simple as that. Do a patch that has the _same_ output and then we can 
see whether it's a good patch. You made the same mistake with your 
/proc/timer_stats cleanups. I dont like NACK-ing patches but you seem to 
be missing the basic precondition of cleanups: no functional effect to 
the code, and certainly no change in output.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/