From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AF99E77188 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:52:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=d/n1qKV0tvxC9MuUBwonTmkiRIrA3IPEuE6qHCO/sRo=; b=wOs4RGUuJIWjOF i9UYO5P2eMnYpvLFKVyMlnog1G/QkEI5gAt8pPDouW5gkUx2bB5KsRfjYNg7CiUP/fWmFlX1R3GHW 6Sso+a+yKw3cxYEFfvZkrHHU4D5O8rcIdTzbqN7Y4QuFCsCP5v9/xzRRFsqwsSN3JdbTIBSH4KGpO Zw2g2siq3GWRg//sj4XNBv46q036Gi9b0mThjp6IpEHYi4QmRAU0m2yEk2k5MkbvkpuMkbz1SwU63 fMPll/bp1KtFyH/J8MR+jVGru8nVWfa7iP2lCBJU34LUQF6hJiw4GBWVUZJGLXs8NLkXQwTaxes8a Z2J1K26ln/C1pd98a32w==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tTku7-0000000DUcX-0OqX; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 16:52:07 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1tTku4-0000000DUbl-0KFN for linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 16:52:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACBC5C64A7; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:51:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4EC42C4CECE; Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:52:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1735923122; bh=58khvkNUqxd3P2obZLHz4AGI382Z9+SOg3N/vpAAXRg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=t8tBQsBkQUvmKhCM4rkYUmD1LZs/ZLSj7FPA+XimaQZxnVte6RolTuR22n2H7C3ls W00WAwD2OdGN4h+XwJQlSlakVNIerPcqMlEe1P1Rmp/YgTke9U0M+GM//j10Ok51Xd 7Co8ZQHwQkWKx7C3a66zNP1NxXjeSDJoUdzaH6RKDs9iGmFhfrLqOjGd4aK6vpzO81 0L3gXIeVfEfRFtrV+PnuRBjkWQL+85qow8ulTuYI3EnWVQvSr8OTSfip9saalpc9Fw MPkSVtppD8zh25QkUbxKoHKhR1y0FQ8yVH+NWZ6YwPFO9rldvgfFKrNTqIQyMxL8zI 1WPF+E6U6gKrg== Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:51:59 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Charlie Jenkins Cc: Ian Rogers , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Namhyung Kim , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools: perf: tests: Fix code reading for riscv Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20250103_085204_151928_E5D530EC X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 16.41 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 05:44:56PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:52:24PM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 05:20:15PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > Yeah I agree. This test case did end up being interesting though as it > > unconvered this change in behavior of objdump on riscv, but that's > > tangential to the purpose of this test case. We need this patch on riscv > > to stop this test from failing, but it is also reasonable to approach > > this differently and not use objdump at all. > What's the next step here? Would you prefer to get rid of this test > entirely? I sent out a v3 that uses uname [1]. > Link > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241219-perf_fix_riscv_obj_reading-v3-1-a7d644dcfa50@rivosinc.com/ > [1] I'm ok with this latest version and added it to perf-tools-next, changing the patch subject line to: perf tests code-reading: Handle change in objdump output from binutils >= 2.41 on riscv Ok? - Arnaldo _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv