RE: Freezing.. (was Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance)

[Nakajima, Jun]

BTW, in terms of validation, I think we might want to compare the results from LTP (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/), for example, by having it run on the two setups (sysenter/sysexit and int/iret). 

Jun

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linus Torvalds [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:50 AM
> To: Dave Jones
> Cc: Horst von Brand; [e-mail]; Alan Cox; Andrew Morton
> Subject: Freezing.. (was Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance)
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:40:24AM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
> >  > [Extremely interesting new syscall mechanism tread elided]
> >  >
> >  > What happened to "feature freeze"?
> >
> > *bites lip* it's fairly low impact *duck*.
> 
> However, it's a fair question.
> 
> I've been wondering how to formalize patch acceptance at code freeze, but
> it might be a good idea to start talking about some way to maybe put
> brakes on patches earlier, ie some kind of "required approval process".
> 
> I think the system call thing is very localized and thus not a big issue,
> but in general we do need to have something in place.
> 
> I just don't know what that "something" should be. Any ideas? I thought
> about the code freeze require buy-in from three of four people (me, Alan,
> Dave and Andrew come to mind) for a patch to go in, but that's probably
> too draconian for now. Or is it (maybe start with "needs approval by two"
> and switch it to three when going into code freeze)?
> 
> 			Linus
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/