Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is it correct to say that oprofile-on-2.6.18 works, and that > oprofile-on-2.6.19-rc5 does not? > > Or is there some sort of workaround for this, or does 2.6.19-rc5 only fail > in some particular scenarios? > > If it's really true that oprofile is simply busted then that's a serious > problem and we should find some way of unbusting it. If that means just > adding a dummy "0" entry which always returns zero or something like that, > then fine. > > But we can't just go and bust it.
The simple question. If we turn off the NMI watchdog on 2.6.19-rc5 does oprofile work? I believe that is what Andi said. The description I read was a resource conflict. The resources oprofile just expects it can used are already in use so we tell it no and the user space oprofile doesn't cope. Now I don't know the interface allows us to rename the interfaces from 1 2 3 to 0 1 2. If we can then that looks like something we can fix. Otherwise from the description I tend to agree with Andi. The user space application assumed it own hardware that it did not. Hmm. I bet if nothing else we could move the NMI watchdog from 0 to 3 and make things work that way... Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
