Hi Ingo, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Masami Hiramatsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> cool! Please Cc: lkml and Harvey as well so that there's less >>> overlap in unification work - Harvey spent quite some time unifying >>> and cleaning up the kprobes code during the past week. >> Should I rewrite it based on current git tree? >> My patch includes 3 part of patches. >> - 2 Bugfix patches (which is not merged yet.) >> - 2 booster patches (ditto) >> - 2 unification patches (most of this patches are already done by Harvey's >> patch) > > would it be easier/more robust to first did the unification patches and > then get the bugfixes and new features in? That would give us your > bugfixes and new features on both 32-bit and 64-bit at the same time.
As far as I can see, my patches have less #ifdefs than Harvey's. However, that patch's granularity may be not so good currently. > feel free to do whichever approach you prefer - but it would be nice to > preserve the unification and cleanup work done by Harvey. OK, rewriting will take a while, so I sent a series of patches which I have just now. > btw., is any of your bugfixes 2.6.24 material? Yes, I'd like to fix first two bugs in 2.6.24. Thank you very much, > > Ingo -- Masami Hiramatsu Software Engineer Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. Software Solutions Division e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/