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)

[Luming Yu]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:57:02 +0800
> Luming Yu <luming.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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. ÂI'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. ÂThe 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/