Re: Process events: Fix biarch compatibility

[Andrew Morton]

Matt Helsley <matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Andrew, I'd like to revise my request and shoot for eventual inclusion
> in 2.6.18 if it's not too much to ask. What do you think?

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

The per-task-delay-accounting patches I'd like to get into 2.6.18, yes. 
We've been dicking around for *years* with enhanced system accounting
requirements and we now seem to have a roughly-agreed-upon way of doing
that.  I think we just need to get it in there and get people using it for
their various accounting needs.  I was planning on getting all this into
-rc1 but then we got derailed by the 1000-cpus-doing-1000-exits-per-second
problem.

The task-watchers patches I really like - it fixes the problem of more and
more subsystems adding their little own little hooks all into the same
places.  But I think it's much less urgent than per-task-delay-accounting
and, given that (afaik) we haven't yet resolved whether task-watchers will
use a single notifier chain or one per event, I'm inclined to hold that
back until 2.6.19.

-
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/