Re: [PATCH V5 00/25] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for Instruction Tracing
From: Adrian Hunter
Date: Fri Mar 13 2015 - 07:42:41 EST
On 12/03/15 22:57, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>> On 11/03/2015 9:33 p.m., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> We'll get that sorted out eventually. Sorry for the flux, but its trying
>>> to get it to a better, more fine grained state.
>>>> I will send another revision of the patch set, but I am also
>>>> considered renaming everything from "itrace" to something more
>>>> generic. Possibly "auxtrace" or "hwtrace". Any preferences?
>>> That should match whatever name is used for the kernel facility it will
>>> handle.... both auxtrace and hwtrace looks too ambiguous...
>>> cputrace perhaps?
>> "cputrace" sounds a bit like what perf already does. I am leaning toward
>> "auxtrace" which got Andi's vote.
>> It is possible Peter is waiting on perf tools patches before
>> moving the kernel driver patches. Are you amenable to taking
>> more of my patches or are you waiting on the Alex's driver patches?
> Can't this be submitted together? And with instructions about how to
> test it, which hardware supports it, etc, so that we can try to find
> hardware inside our corporate walls and test this as one piece?
As Alex pointed out to me, his patches are already in Peter's queue - they
can't be resubmitted.
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/