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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Martin Peschke <mp3@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/