Re: What is the right practice to get new code upstream( was Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0)
From: Luming Yu <hidden>
Date: 2012-06-14 09:25:48
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:57:02 +0800 Luming Yu [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I need to know what the right practice is to get your attention to accept a new tool upstream like this one.Seems that you have some good feedback from Arnd to be looking at. I'm usually the guy for mysterious misc stuff such as this, so please cc me on future revisions.
Andrew, Thanks a lot :-) The community is really helpful after find right people for right things.
The name "hw_test" and "HW_TEST" is too vague. The topic "testing hardware" is very broad, and this module only touches a small fraction of it, so please think up a far more specific name.
I'm working on Version 2 of the tool which would be renamed to cpu_latency_test, or simply misc_latency_test? thanks!!! /l