diff for duplicates of <1497525392.3755.307.camel@klomp.org> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 6827822..49b5b13 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:46 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch: ->=20 +> > commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6 > Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com> > Date: Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200 ->=20 +> > perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw -> =20 +> > So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before > the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common > scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still > interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing > perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding. ->=20 +> > If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing. Thanks! No, I didn't have that patch (*) yet. It makes a huge @@ -28,14 +28,12 @@ Mark --- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c -@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg= -, -=20 - err =3D dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback= -, ui); -=20 +@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg, + + err = dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback, ui); + - if (err && !ui->max_stack) -+ if (err && ui->max_stack !=3D max_stack) - err =3D 0; -=20 ++ if (err && ui->max_stack != max_stack) + err = 0; + /* diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 5743377..d8b6fb8 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -16,19 +16,19 @@ "b\0" "On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:46 +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:\n" "> Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6\n" "> Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>\n" "> Date: Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw\n" - "> =20\n" + "> \n" "> So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before\n" "> the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common\n" "> scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still\n" "> interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing\n" "> perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.\n" - ">=20\n" + "> \n" "> If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.\n" "\n" "Thanks! No, I didn't have that patch (*) yet. It makes a huge\n" @@ -44,16 +44,14 @@ "\n" "--- a/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c\n" "+++ b/tools/perf/util/unwind-libdw.c\n" - "@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg=\n" - ",\n" - "=20\n" - " err =3D dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback=\n" - ", ui);\n" - "=20\n" + "@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ int unwind__get_entries(unwind_entry_cb_t cb, void *arg,\n" + " \n" + " err = dwfl_getthread_frames(ui->dwfl, thread->tid, frame_callback, ui);\n" + " \n" "- if (err && !ui->max_stack)\n" - "+ if (err && ui->max_stack !=3D max_stack)\n" - " err =3D 0;\n" - "=20\n" + "+ if (err && ui->max_stack != max_stack)\n" + " err = 0;\n" + " \n" /* -d3c666031e1bf04dd0feeea31875016e56424689e54313dbd8c91aa9a52a5148 +c42dcf89e6b9732b532c095eaffdeae8966fbee0acbc546927903d8ba79a669f
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.