Re: [patch 00/24] perfmon3: introduction

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:58:22 -0700 Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 22, 2008 1:39 am stephane eranian wrote:
> > As you know, I have been involved with this project for quite some time
> > now. I have been through many ups and downs trying to get this merged
> > upstream. So rest assured of my full determination to bring this to the
> > point of success.
> 
> I've been following this at a high level since using perfmon on ia64 several 
> years ago.  I have to say I'm impressed that you've put up with all the review 
> and code churn (which to me often seemed arbitrary) without burning out.
> 
> Honestly I think it sucks that perfmonN isn't upstream yet supporting all the 
> various architectures you've been working with.  You've obviously proven to be 
> a much more responsive and end-user focused maintainer than several of the 
> other fly by night profiling infrastructures we currently have in the kernel 
> (the long abandoned oprofile and perfctr come to mind).
> 
> As I mentioned at KS, I think it's about time we had a single point of contact 
> for profiling in the kernel, to avoid the massive functional duplication we 
> have today and make sure some kind of code sharing occurs; seems to me you'd 
> be a good candidate for that sort of job.
> 
> But regardless, I think it's about time this got merged.  Linus?  Andrew?

It is several years late.  For me the problem has been that we do a lot
of review and have lots of discussion but then the trail goes cold for
six months and when it all pops up again the code has changed and/or
we've all forgotten about it again.

What it needs is a sustained effort to get it over the hump.  How's
about getting it into linux-next asap and then we all agree to do the
re-re-re-review and runtime testing for a 2.6.29 merge?