Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
err... I have to orginize some issues next few days so I'll be out of my
notebook. Then I'll finilize the ipipe-irq-related patch so to be ready
for the .01 version.
Meanwhile, I have finished merging the shared IRQ infrastructure into
the Adeos codebase for all su
Hi Jim,
Jim Cromie wrote:
hi Phillipe, everyone,
happy 06 !
Bugfree 06? Nah, just kidding...
Out of curiosity, I applied adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-i386-1.1-01.patch on top
of 15.
the rejects were small, and simple enough looking, that even
a lazy sod like myself might manually fix them, so I d
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
>>
>> arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
>
>
> Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
> instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
>
To c
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c |4
include/asm
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
err... I have to orginize some issues next few days so I'll be out of my
notebook. Then I'll finilize the ipipe-irq-related patch so to be ready
for the .01 version.
Meanwhile, I have finished merging the shared IRQ infrastructure into
the Adeos codebase for all su
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c |4
include/asm-i386/system.h | 70 +
include/linux/ipipe_trace.h |3
kernel/ipipe/Kconfig | 18 ++
kern
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
I've just rolled out two patches, the first issue of the 1.1 series
for
x86, and the accompanying tracer patch contributed by Jan Kiszka and
Luotao Fu. With the
Hi Jim,
Jim Cromie wrote:
hi Phillipe, everyone,
happy 06 !
Bugfree 06? Nah, just kidding...
Out of curiosity, I applied adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-i386-1.1-01.patch on top
of 15.
the rejects were small, and simple enough looking, that even
a lazy sod like myself might manually fix them, so I d
hi Phillipe, everyone,
happy 06 !
Out of curiosity, I applied adeos-ipipe-2.6.14-i386-1.1-01.patch on top
of 15.
the rejects were small, and simple enough looking, that even
a lazy sod like myself might manually fix them, so I did.
whats more, it built clean and booted !
I havent done anythi
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
>>
>> arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
>
>
> Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
> instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
>
To c
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
Is there any good reason to patch the callers of __ipipe_handle_irq
instead of instrumenting the callee directly?
arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c |4
include/asm
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi again,
here comes the first update of the new latency tracer.
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S | 27 +++
arch/i386/kernel/ipipe-root.c |4
include/asm-i386/system.h | 70 +
include/linux/ipipe_trace.h |3
kernel/ipipe/Kconfig | 18 ++
kern
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Philippe Gerum wrote:
I've just rolled out two patches, the first issue of the 1.1 series
for
x86, and the accompanying tracer patch contributed by Jan Kiszka and
Luotao Fu. With the
13 matches
Mail list logo