Re: [PATCH 00/15] oprofile fixes and updates for v2.6.34
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Tue Mar 02 2010 - 05:01:56 EST
* Robert Richter <robert.richter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27.02.10 10:03:31, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Hm, the perf_event.c bits conflict quite heavily with pending changes in
> > tip:perf/core.
> > So to not hold up the oprofile changes for v2.6.34 i've pulled the core
> > oprofile changes for v2.6.34 into tip:oprofile (up to cfc9c0b, if that is fine
> > with you), and mind reworking the last 3 patches against perf/core?
> Ingo & Peter,
> I have a rebased version containing also a merge from:
> tip/oprofile -> tip/perf/core
> Please pull again from:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rric/oprofile.git core
Pulled, thanks Robert!
> > On a related note, wrt. your ongoing work for perf IBS support. The following
> > patch by Peter:
> > f22f54f: perf_events, x86: Split PMU definitions into separate files
> Yes, the patches went also upstream on Friday. Will update my current patch
> stack now. Maybe it would have been better to first integrate all pending
> patches before doing that split. Conflict resolution is a pain for moving
> code. But anyway, it is supposed to go upstream and I will rebase my
The way to do it is to not keep that many pending patches in the first place.
There are always 'pending patches' - if we waited for them to drain then we
could never do cleanups.
Peter, Arnaldo, Frederic and all the other perf developers sync their patches
with perf/core very frequently and push these bits to me. This has various
- breakages are discovered quickly and can be mitigated before more harm is
- patch review is a lot more gradual (and a lot less taxing) as well.
- other people can get interested and jump in and help you out.
- design mistakes/disagreements can also be hashed out before too much work
is invested into a particular direction.
- as a maintainer i can see progress and can see problem areas. This makes it
much easier to judge and plan a new topic's upstream integration schedule.
It's not tucked away in some tree, with a large stream of patches showing
up at once.
i.e. it's all variations of the 'release early, release often' Linux mantra.
So if you have a significant amount of pending patches then you are doing
something wrong. Please consider adapting your workflow and please get any
pending pieces to us in small, reviewable pieces.
That's especially true of large, intrusive features: for example the IBS bits
could be moved into perf/core gradually, in a series of clean steps, even if
they are not functional yet.
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/