Re: [PATCH V5 0/3] perf tool: Haswell LBR call stack support (user)

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

Em Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:22:06PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:11:04AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:53:05PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:27:08AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 04:18:56PM +0000, Liang, Kan escreveu:
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:51:42PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > > > Em Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 02:49:52PM +0000, Liang, Kan escreveu:
> > > > > > > > Jiri Wrote:
> > > > > > > > > looks ok to me..
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > > > > > > I'll test it once I get hands on Haswel server again, I guess we
> > > > > > > > > wait for the kernel change to go in first anyway, right?
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure, let's ask Peter.
> > > > > > > > Peter?
> > > > > > > Would be good to go in one pull request, so that whoever pulls it has
> > > > > > > the chance to test the kernel feature with the accompanying tooling bits.
> > > > > > also there's user part dependency on kernel.. soem new define IIRC
> > > > > Oh, right. We have to let them go in together.
> > > > The ones that are just prep patches I am merging now, Jiri, can I stick
> > > > an Acked-by to the non-LBR related ones?
> >  
> > > I guess u mean just this one? 
> > > 2803   T Dec 02 kan.liang@intel (3.4K) ├─>[PATCH V5 2/3] perf tool: Move cpumode resolve code to add_callchain_ip
> > 
> > There is another I split from, iirc 1/3, that is unrelated to that
> > patch, fixing '-g fp' usage that became invalid after a patch from you:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=f70b4e39de4ef25aade966c0dfc69cfb97091be9
> 
> this onliner is ok, but I dont recall seeing this change separated..

I did the separation here, I thought I could have your ack there as you
said you was ok with the whole patchkit, no?
 
> and its 'Link' points to the whole 1/3 patch, which seems weird
> 
> what do I miss?

Well, that is why I added the comment just before my S-o-B :-) We could
have gone thru the whole process of me submitting a patchkit so that we
could have a proper Link:, but I thought it was too straightforward to
warrant that :-\

- Arnaldo