From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751689AbbCKTdG (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:33:06 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:45785 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750820AbbCKTdB (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:33:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:33:09 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Ahern , Frederic Weisbecker , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Paul Mackerras , Stephane Eranian , Alexander Shishkin Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 00/25] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for Instruction Tracing Message-ID: <20150311193309.GA926@kernel.org> References: <1425762394-29799-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <55006579.4000402@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55006579.4000402@intel.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:55:37PM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu: > On 7/03/2015 11:06 p.m., Adrian Hunter wrote: > >Hi > > > >Here is V5 of some more preparatory patches for Intel PT > >that introduce an abstraction for Instruction tracing. > > > >The Intel PT driver is not yet in tip. > > > >Peter, could we please have Alex's 14 patches applied to > >tip? > > Peter, I know you are really busy, but it would be helpful to know > what you plan to do? > > > > >The master branch of the tree: > > > > git://git.infradead.org/users/ahunter/linux-perf.git > > > >contains these patches plus Intel PT and BTS and the kernel driver. > > > >Arnaldo, I have re-based on tip because of the conflict > >with your ordered-events changes. I will have a closer look > >at that next week. > > I took a closer look and resolved the conflict by introducing: > > static int perf_session__deliver_ordered_event(struct ordered_events *oe, > struct ordered_event *event, > struct perf_sample *sample) > { > struct perf_session *session = > container_of(oe, struct perf_session, ordered_events); > > return perf_session__deliver_event(session, event->event, sample, > oe->tool, event->file_offset); > } That would clash again, as in my tree I have it as: static int perf_session__deliver_event(struct ordered_events *oe, struct ordered_event *event, struct perf_sample *sample) { return machines__deliver_event(oe->machines, oe->evlist, event->event, sample, oe->tool, event->file_offset); } Which is a misnomer really, as by now it has nothing to do with a perf_session, its all about ordered_event to a ordered_events. 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? - Arnaldo