[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100317014755.GC5258@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:47:56 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to
lock
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:38:37PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> I implemented it on the branch perf/inject of Frederic's random-tracing tree.
> Because the branch is hottest place of lock and tracing :)
Ouch! You shouldn't do this. The patches inside were
trials submitted for review and the resulting discussion
concluded that the injection must be redesigned.
More generally I don't recommend you to base your patches
on my tree. I use it as a buffer when I send patches
for review or for pull requests.
The branches inside can be randomly rebased (unless a
branch is waiting to be pulled) and they are pretty async
with the -tip tree.
The hottest and most sync tree on which you should base your patches
for perf is:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git
perf/core
With that you have best chances to work on a sane and up-to-date
base.
Thanks.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists