Re: rawhide report: 20071201 changes
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 08:15 -0500, Build System wrote: kernel-2.6.24-0.61.rc3.git5.fc9 --- * Fri Nov 30 2007 Kyle McMartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Oops! Local make-build-go-faster kernel.spec patch slipped in, reverted. cat GNUmakefile EOF ppc ppc64 i686: DIST_DEFINES += --without debug --without doc --without headers --without debuginfo include Makefile EOF -- dwmw2 ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:02:23AM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote: Hi, I just finished removing the sysprof-kmod package from CVS as mandated by the new guidelines for F9 and above. I am now seeking some help to understand what is needed to have again the kernel module required for proper operations of the sysprof package. Upstream sources are at: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ The upstream kernel is likely to eventually get support for perfmon2 integrated, but this could really use more work. It's been in -mm for a while. If there's anything that sysprof can do that perfmon can't (which would be surprising given perfmons featuritis) it would useful to talk with the perfmon developers so we can eventually arrive at an upstreamed solution and not have to worry about integrating out-of-tree patches. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod
On Dec 2, 2007 1:09 AM, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:02:23AM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote: Hi, I just finished removing the sysprof-kmod package from CVS as mandated by the new guidelines for F9 and above. I am now seeking some help to understand what is needed to have again the kernel module required for proper operations of the sysprof package. Upstream sources are at: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ The upstream kernel is likely to eventually get support for perfmon2 integrated, but this could really use more work. It's been in -mm for a while. If there's anything that sysprof can do that perfmon can't (which would be surprising given perfmons featuritis) it would useful to talk with the perfmon developers so we can eventually arrive at an upstreamed solution and not have to worry about integrating out-of-tree patches. Thanks Dave, this is an interesting information, so I am CCing the upstream author (just in case he is not subscribed to this list). Now I still wonder what to do here because: 1. it's not sure if this perfmon2 will be in Fedora kernels before F9 ships 2. sysprof has to be adapted to use perfmon2 I mean, it's clear that 1+2 it's the best thing we could come out with, but I'd like to have working sysprof in the repo until that materialize. To this end, please weight in that this is just a single module (one .c and its .h) loaded by the user only when needed. Of course, I can not argue with you about the implications of including this into the kernel package, but I really would like a B plan if we will not have a perfmon enabled kernel+userspace available in time. ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 19:09 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 01:02:23AM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote: Hi, I just finished removing the sysprof-kmod package from CVS as mandated by the new guidelines for F9 and above. I am now seeking some help to understand what is needed to have again the kernel module required for proper operations of the sysprof package. Upstream sources are at: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ The upstream kernel is likely to eventually get support for perfmon2 integrated, but this could really use more work. It's been in -mm for a while. If there's anything that sysprof can do that perfmon can't (which would be surprising given perfmons featuritis) it would useful to talk with the perfmon developers so we can eventually arrive at an upstreamed solution and not have to worry about integrating out-of-tree patches. Until that happens can we please carry the patch in the Fedora kernel? IIRC it's not invasive at all. And it's really annoying not being able to use sysprof. Thanks. David ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
Re: Getting rid of sysprof-kmod
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 02:04:01AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: Upstream sources are at: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~sandmann/sysprof/ The upstream kernel is likely to eventually get support for perfmon2 integrated, but this could really use more work. It's been in -mm for a while. If there's anything that sysprof can do that perfmon can't (which would be surprising given perfmons featuritis) it would useful to talk with the perfmon developers so we can eventually arrive at an upstreamed solution and not have to worry about integrating out-of-tree patches. Until that happens can we please carry the patch in the Fedora kernel? IIRC it's not invasive at all. And it's really annoying not being able to use sysprof. Thanks. The problem is I really hate adding patches that provide new user interfaces. It's easy enough to add it, but it'll be a 'fedora-ism' that doesn't work in any other distro, or with an upstream kernel. And what happens if someone starts building more things on top of the sysprof exports? It's the same reason patches that add syscalls get vetoed. We don't want to be in a situation where it appears we're locking users into running our distro/kernel. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk ___ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
