Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S970654AbXFHQ11 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:27:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S968248AbXFHQ1N (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:27:13 -0400 Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]:38406 "EHLO mtagate4.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S969278AbXFHQ1K (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:27:10 -0400 Message-ID: <46698358.2030407@de.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:27:04 +0200 From: Martin Peschke Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?IBM_Deutschland_Entwicklung_GmbH_Vor?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?sitzender_des_Aufsichtsrats=3A_Johann_Weihen_Ge?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?sch=E4ftsf=FChrung=3A_Herbert_Kircher_Sitz_der_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gesellschaft=3A_B=F6blingen_Registergericht=3A_Amts?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?gericht_Stuttgart=2C_HRB_243294?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: "Bill Huey (hui)" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, jbaron@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 4/4] lock contention tracking slimmed down References: <1181165656.7133.23.camel@dix> <20070606230641.GA11592@elte.hu> <46674EA9.9090601@de.ibm.com> <20070607044017.GA3828@gnuppy.monkey.org> <4667ADDA.2070202@de.ibm.com> <20070607073021.GA21139@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070607073021.GA21139@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1019 Lines: 24 Ingo Molnar wrote: > Firstly, submit cleanup patches that _do not change the output_. If you > have any output changes, do it as a separate patch, ontop of the cleanup > patch. Mixing material changes and cleanups into a single patch is a > basic patch submission mistake that will only earn you NACKs. Let's put this straight: it has not been my primary goal to clean it up. I have posted an alternative implementation. One of the good things about the alternative implementation is lines-of-savings through code sharing. Don't hear me say my code is perfect. As anybody else here I am relying on reviews and feedback in order to make it good enough. I think there has been enough duplication to consider a component that statistics data is handed over to. Martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/