From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752714AbcAFXuw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:50:52 -0500
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:44948 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752192AbcAFXuu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Jan 2016 18:50:50 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 20:50:45 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] perf tools: Fix dynamic sort keys to sort properly
Message-ID: <20160106235045.GF2012@kernel.org>
References: <1452041701-27689-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <1452041701-27689-3-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20160106230643.GB2012@kernel.org>
 <20160106232645.GC8053@sejong>
 <20160106233149.GE2012@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160106233149.GE2012@kernel.org>
X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Em Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:31:49PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:26:45AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 08:06:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 09:54:59AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > > Currently, the dynamic sort keys compares trace data using memcmp().
> > > > But for output sorting, it should check data size and compare by word.
> > > > Also it sorted strings in reverse order, fix it.
> > > 
> > > Can this be broken down in two patches? This is complex code, lets try
> > > to make it as bisectable as possible.
> > 
> > OK, I'll break out the string part then.  But I think it doesn't help
> > much to reduce the complexity.
> 
> Well, number of patches is not a problem, everytime I see a "Also lets
> do this other thing" I cringe, it is automatic, sorry :-\
> 
> For reviewing its soooo much better to see things nicely separated, and
> sometimes I like one part but not the other, so I pick one and continue
> discussion on the other, etc.

Ah, please rebase from my latest perf/core, I'm still holding on it
since some 'perf test' entries are failing and I want to check first if
its due to bugs introduced in this branch...

- Arnaldo