From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: leo.yan@linaro.org (Leo Yan) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 22:49:22 +0800 Subject: [RFT v3 1/4] perf cs-etm: Generate branch sample for missed packets In-Reply-To: References: <1527497103-3593-1-git-send-email-leo.yan@linaro.org> <1527497103-3593-2-git-send-email-leo.yan@linaro.org> <20180528221347.GA4109@xps15> <20180529002538.GA11317@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> <20180530002837.GB11923@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> Message-ID: <20180530144922.GB12368@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 08:45:46AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > On 29 May 2018 at 18:28, Leo Yan wrote: > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:04:49AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> > As now this patch is big with more complex logic, so I consider to > >> > split it into small patches: > >> > > >> > - Define CS_ETM_INVAL_ADDR; > >> > - Fix for CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet; > >> > - Fix for exception packet; > >> > > >> > Does this make sense for you? I have concern that this patch is a > >> > fixing patch, so not sure after spliting patches will introduce > >> > trouble for applying them for other stable kernels ... > >> > >> Reverse the order: > >> > >> - Fix for CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet; > >> - Fix for exception packet; > >> - Define CS_ETM_INVAL_ADDR; > >> > >> But you may not need to - see next comment. > > > > From the discussion context, I think here 'you may not need to' is > > referring to my concern for applying patches on stable kernel, so I > > should take this patch series as an enhancement and don't need to > > consider much for stable kernel. > > Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for confirmation, will send new patch series according to the discussion. [...] Thanks, Leo Yan