From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752222AbdFNOpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:45:01 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38524 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065AbdFNOpA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 10:45:00 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4E29F219A7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=acme@kernel.org Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:44:56 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Alexander Shishkin , David Ahern , Namhyung Kim , Peter Zijlstra , Wang Nan Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf evsel: Fix probing of precise_ip level for default cycles event Message-ID: <20170614144456.GE32020@kernel.org> References: <20170613232343.4365-1-acme@kernel.org> <20170613232343.4365-2-acme@kernel.org> <20170614054500.exocsybw2qkug5tn@gmail.com> <20170614104426.GA32020@kernel.org> <20170614105154.lg5prmc2xfwivjfz@gmail.com> <20170614105740.GB32020@kernel.org> <20170614135522.onbcuh7aovkto2ld@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170614135522.onbcuh7aovkto2ld@gmail.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 03:55:22PM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:51:55PM +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > > > > > * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > > Can you try with the patch below, which is hackish but the minimal fix at this > > > > point. Later I'll come up with a way of returning a fully configured cycles > > > > evsel, which will make the tools code simpler, moving more stuff to the > > > > libraries. > > > > > > Yeah, this patch on top of your tree seems to work better now. > > > > So how do we proceed, do you want to keep these two as separate or can I > > squash them together, fix that problem with the unwind library and > > provide a new perf/urgent for you to use? > > > > Off to breakfast now tho :-) > > Your call: I had to unpull, so feel free to rebase your urgent branch. Ok, I'll rebase it, prepare another pull req after we nail down the unwind one. - Arnaldo