From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: acme@ghostprotocols.net (Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:02:02 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] perf: ARM64: wire up perf_regs and unwind support In-Reply-To: <20140212113018.GA29132@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1391451427-31221-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> <20140212101011.GC13441@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20140212112744.GA10517@gmail.com> <20140212113018.GA29132@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20140212130202.GA7116@ghostprotocols.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Em Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:30:18AM +0000, Will Deacon escreveu: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:27:44AM +0000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Will Deacon wrote: > > > This needs to go via the perf tree to avoid a repeat of the mess last time. > > If the tooling bits are fine with Arnaldo then I have no objections > > either - once all the bits are acked please send a single series with > > all 4(?) patches in it, for tip:perf/core inclusion. > I think it's just 1 patch -- the other 3 are under arch/arm64, so it would > be easier to take those via the arm64 tree and deal with any conflicts > there. I don't have a problem with arch specific bits, that don't touch the tools at all, going thru the respective arch git tree. Jiri, can you see anything problematic in this? From a quick look I couldn't. - Arnaldo