Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: do not complain if root is owningperf.data

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Aug 28 2009 - 07:52:48 EST



* Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This improves patch fa6963b24 so that perf.data stuff that has
> been dumped as root can be read (annotate/report) by a user
> without the use of the --force.
>
> Rationale is that root has plenty of ways to screw us (usually)
> that do not require twisted schemes involving specially crafting a
> perf.data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Habouzit <pierre.habouzit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>,
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:24:59PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Ok, this makes sense - but i think we should do this in .32 only,
> > with a Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> backport tag for .31.1.
>
> You're the boss ;)
>
> > Mind doing it against the latest perfcounters tree, which can be
> > found in -tip:
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
> >
> > your current version does not apply cleanly as the surrounding code
> > has changed a bit already.
>
> Here it is, against perfcounters/core which I assume is the
> proper tip branch. [...]

Yeah, applied - thanks!

> [...] Note that I'd suggest adding a README.Devel under
> tools/perf to explicit how patches should be submitted, at
> least to explain against which tree it's best to do our
> patches for submission, it could help people avoiding losing
> your time with unnecessary back-and-forth mails just to rebase
> a patch ;)

Agreed! Mind sending a patch for that, or adding a wiki page for
that on perf.wiki.kernel.org? We could then add a link to that to
tools/perf/Documentation/README.Devel or so :-)

Ingo
--
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/