Re: [PATCH v10 00/29] perf tool: Add evsel to perf_sample

[Ian Rogers]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 1:20 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 09:57:02AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 9:40 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 05:52:57PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 1:10 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > > > > I've picked the first 23 patches to tmp.perf-tools-next as the rest
> > > > > still has some issues.  Also I've touched some commits to either remove
> > > > > some parts or split them into separate commits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Namhyung,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for doing this but I've done a similar clean up. To totally
> > > > separate the evsel refactoring from the rest of the changes, to fix
> > > > the address sanitizer issues with kwork, etc. I'll incorporate your
> > > > changes and then resend the series.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'd like to merge what's in the tmp.perf-tools-next unless
> > > there's a serious mistake.  You can rebase the rest changes on top.
> >
> > I'd drop what's in tmp.perf-tools-next. Otherwise we're putting fixes
> > on top of fixes. Looking at v12 the sashiko issues are all minor and
> > the progression of the patches is more granular and natural.
>
> The goal is to reduce the amount of work (including review) during the
> merge window.  Also I don't think there are many fixes in the tmp
> branch (have you looked at it?).  I think it's ok to add fixes on top
> in this case but I can drop non-conversion patches if you want.

While I'm glad the patches are landing, since the changes depending on
the refactor haven't been posted and won't make the 7.1 merge window,
I don't think there's a huge rush to land this series. That said, I
think v12 is in a good place regarding both the shape of the patches
and Sashiko happiness.

Thanks,
Ian

> Thanks,
> Namhyung