Re: [PATCH v14 00/32] perf tools: Add evsel to perf_sample

[Ian Rogers]

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 12:46 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 04:15:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 12:05:06PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > Nearly all perf code ends up passing an evsel with the perf_sample,
> > > which is problematic if you want to rewrite the evsel (such as with
> > > off-CPU processing) because all uses of the evsel need to be fixed
> > > up. Since the perf_sample now carries its own resolved evsel pointer,
> > > passing evsel separately is redundant and error-prone (allowing
> > > parameter divergence bugs).
> > >
> > > This series cleans up the redundant evsel parameter across all perf
> > > tool subcommands and APIs, ensuring that tools uniformly retrieve
> > > event attributes directly from the sample itself. This simplifies
> > > function signatures and improves API consistency.
> > >
> > > Additionally, this series incorporates subsequent memory safety
> > > improvements, robust bounds checking, and memory leak corrections
> > > prompted by address sanitizers and Sashiko code reviews.
> > >
> > > The original combined RFC patch:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260126071822.447368-1-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > was split up per reviewer requests.
> > >
> > > v14:
> > >  - Incorporate Acked-by tags from Namhyung Kim.
> > >  - Re-polish and expand commit descriptions to provide thorough explanations
> > >    of the changes and their rationale.
> >
> > Thanks, tentatively applying it to perf-tools-next, for v7.2.
>
> Had to apply a minor fixup for a conflict with anoter patch series from
> you, the LBR one.

Sorry for that and thanks for dealing with the conflict! Any chance
you could push to tmp.perf-tools-next? I have some other series that
will conflict and it would be nice to rebase those changes there.

Thanks,
Ian

> - Arnaldo