Re: [PATCH V5 0/3] perf tool: Haswell LBR call stack support (user)
From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Tue Dec 09 2014 - 08:22:27 EST
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:11:04AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:53:05PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:27:08AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:18:56PM +0000, Liang, Kan escreveu:
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:51:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > > Em Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:49:52PM +0000, Liang, Kan escreveu:
> > > > > > > Jiri Wrote:
> > > > > > > > looks ok to me..
> > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > > > > I'll test it once I get hands on Haswel server again, I guess we
> > > > > > > > wait for the kernel change to go in first anyway, right?
> > > > > > > I'm not sure, let's ask Peter.
> > > > > > > Peter?
> > > > > > Would be good to go in one pull request, so that whoever pulls it has
> > > > > > the chance to test the kernel feature with the accompanying tooling bits.
> > > > > also there's user part dependency on kernel.. soem new define IIRC
> > > > Oh, right. We have to let them go in together.
> > > The ones that are just prep patches I am merging now, Jiri, can I stick
> > > an Acked-by to the non-LBR related ones?
> > I guess u mean just this one?
> > 2803 T Dec 02 kan.liang@intel (3.4K) ââ>[PATCH V5 2/3] perf tool: Move cpumode resolve code to add_callchain_ip
> There is another I split from, iirc 1/3, that is unrelated to that
> patch, fixing '-g fp' usage that became invalid after a patch from you:
this onliner is ok, but I dont recall seeing this change separated..
and its 'Link' points to the whole 1/3 patch, which seems weird
what do I miss?
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/