Re: [PATCH v5] Unified trace buffer

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Indeed. And on some architectures 'packed' will actually mean that 
> > the compiler may think that it's unaligned, and then generate much 
> > worse code to access the fields. So if you align things anyway (and 
> > you do), then 'packed' is the wrong thing to do.
> 
> OK, I'm making v6 now with various cleanups. I'll nuke it on that one.

btw., now that it's getting into shape, could you please fix the ftrace 
portion:

> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2 v3] ftrace: make work with new ring buffer
>
> Note: This patch is a proof of concept, and breaks a lot of 
> functionality of ftrace.
>
> This patch simply makes ftrace work with the developmental ring 
> buffer.

... to not have known bugs, so that we could try it in tip/ftrace and 
make sure it works well in practice?

it's a ton of changes already, it would be nice to get to some stable 
known-working state and do delta patches from that point on, and keep 
its 'works well' quality.

	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/