[PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding library

[jolsa@redhat.com (Jiri Olsa)]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:58:19AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:27:43PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:41:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > 	Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before
> > > > > the required version was widely available in distros?
> > > 
> > > > > 	I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that:
> > > 
> > > > > Enabling it once it became widely available:
> > > 
> > > > >    24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default")
> > > 
> > > > > Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git
> > > > > repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo:
> > > 
> > > > >   6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default")
> > > > 
> > > > I think at that time we did not have a way to hide the check,
> > > > now we have FEATURE_DISPLAY seprated so we can still check
> > > > for it, but users won't be bothered with [ FAIL ] output
> > > 
> > > Ok, users won't be bothered with the fail output, but we tried hard to
> > > get the build fast by having it only test for things that are widely
> > > available, right? I.e. if we know something is not widely available then
> > > we better not try to build with it and get faster builds, wasn't that
> > > part of the rationale in the babeltrace case?
> > > 
> > > If one has to build from sources some library, then its not a problem to
> > > have in the make command line a LIBOPENCSD=1 switch?
> > 
> > right, we can do it like that
> 
> So I'm applying v2 and we can go on from there, to make progress, ok?
> I'm adding your Acked-by to all but the build ones, ok?

I think v3 was in better shape.. wrt tabs and overall display

jirka