Re: [PATCH] perf report: Support caller callchain order when using DWARF unwinder.

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:54:58PM +0100, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:06:31 AM CET Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:33:25AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:19:44PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > 
> > > SNIP
> > > 
> > > > > > there's no check for return value of entry callback
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > also I wonder would it be better to store into ips[] within
> > > > > > the single loop all the time, and iterate throught it after
> > > > > > forward/backward based on the callchain_param.order
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > please check attached patch, totaly untested, probably leaking some
> > > > > > index
> > > > > > ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > any chance this could be done also for util/unwind-libdw.c ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That patch looks much better than mine. I'll try it out later next
> > > > > week and
> > > > > will also have a look at util/unwind-libdw.c. Question: How can I test
> > > > > the
> > > > 
> > > > So, you tried this patch, right? Jiri, have you submitted this in some
> > > > other message I missed?
> > > 
> > > nope.. I thought Milian would take it ;-)
> > 
> > I can take it, as soon as you guys agree its something I should :-)
> 
> Yes, I think it's good as-is. Should I resubmit Jiris patch? Considering that 
> he rewrote the patch, should he send it and add me as tester? How do you 
> handle such situations in the Kernel land?

So, I'll fix this all up by adding a Signed-off-by: Jiri and a
Tested-by: Millian, which I think I can do according to the above
messages and past experience, but the Correct Way to do this would
be for Jiri to collect your Tested-by and resubmit in a separate
message, not as a patch added to the text of a thread.

Thanks,

- Arnaldo