[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52323BE4.5080100@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:10:44 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes
On 9/12/13 2:18 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> kconf approach of course:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/1/600
>> (minus the manual steps in that RFC).
>
> I'm not sure what the end stage is where you'd like to arrive, but I don't
> think that forcing a separate configuration pass is an improvement :-/
once I have a working config -- say one for a target (minimal build) and
one for analysis (more but not all features -- eg., no gtk) I never see
auto-probing again. At best some new feature (config) comes along and
the config has to be updated again, but kconf only inquires about new
features.
>
> By default a simple 'make' should build perf to the maximum extent
> possible, with no other input required from the user - with warnings
> displayed as package install suggestions.
By default there is no config. Autoprobing generates a first one or a
user can specify a defconfig.
David
--
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