From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753089Ab2CCToS (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:44:18 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17388 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752126Ab2CCToR (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:44:17 -0500 Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:43:46 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ingo Molnar , Stephane Eranian Cc: David Ahern , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, ravitillo@lbl.gov, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, asharma@fb.com, robert.richter@amd.com, ming.m.lin@intel.com, vweaver1@eecs.utk.edu, andi@firstfloor.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: auto-detect branch stack sampling mode Message-ID: <20120303194346.GB22044@infradead.org> References: <20120224094048.GA7952@quad> <4F47ABAD.9080408@gmail.com> <4F47AD6A.6080609@gmail.com> <4F47B1A3.6050503@gmail.com> <20120302190822.GA12431@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120302190822.GA12431@infradead.org> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:08:22PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > Em Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 06:47:38PM +0100, Stephane Eranian escreveu: > > Arnaldo, > > > > What do you think about this patch? > > I'm processing perf/core patches today, will get to this one and merge > or let you know objections, Ingo, What is the status of merging http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git;a=summary ? After that I can try merging Stephane's autho-detect patch, - Arnaldo > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM, David Ahern wrote: > > >> On 2/24/12 8:40 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > >>> > > >>> No, I don't. Read the code carefully. The for loop sets all known feature > > >>> bits. > > >>> Then, the ones not necessary or unused are turned off individually. > > >> > > >> > > >> Ok, I see now. The __set_feat loop is earlier in builtin-record.c, not the > > >> util code. > > >> > > > Yeah. Arnaldo simplified the original code in builtin-record.c to have the loop > > > instead of individual set_feat(). > > > > > >> David