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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8052C43382 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8994820676 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:52:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="PQttvulW" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8994820676 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729306AbeI1VQq (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:16:46 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:59290 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726934AbeI1VQp (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 17:16:45 -0400 Received: from jouet.infradead.org (unknown [179.97.41.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 889EF2064D; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:52:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1538146357; bh=tbeLucJf7uqZcaFvHRtMt9IkxE2ncxyWPV9p2UJrrtc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PQttvulW+Tm92l/lvVW0IAnvCIj5RtcG2GkhSjDc33ffj3yKZBaXyojowV4pmCcPl cyctnGOHrme9WV5TOUdwcGatnWqhyiw+GqBK5Cw5ncPv0fjTC1FMuj4BS9wlIowdOK au2ygII6TTJO+WK+eco8eTNKyTqfI3a3Rv/PIc1s= Received: by jouet.infradead.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2CAAC14024D; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:52:34 -0300 (-03) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 11:52:34 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Ravi Bangoria Cc: Thomas Richter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, brueckner@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf test: S390 does not support watchpoints in test 22 Message-ID: <20180928145234.GK25764@kernel.org> References: <20180928105335.67179-1-tmricht@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > On 09/28/2018 04:23 PM, Thomas Richter wrote: > > S390 does not support the perf_event_open system call for > > attribute type PERF_TYPE_BREAKPOINT. This results in test > > failure for test 22: > > [root@s8360046 perf]# ./perf test 22 > > 22: Watchpoint : > > 22.1: Read Only Watchpoint : FAILED! > > 22.2: Write Only Watchpoint : FAILED! > > 22.3: Read / Write Watchpoint : FAILED! > > 22.4: Modify Watchpoint : FAILED! > > [root@s8360046 perf]# > > Add s390 support to avoid these tests being executed on > > s390 platform: > > [root@s8360046 perf]# ./perf test 22 > > [root@s8360046 perf]# ./perf test -v 22 > > 22: Watchpoint : Disabled > > [root@s8360046 perf]# > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Richter > Acked-by: Ravi Bangoria Thanks, applying. Just one nit, in cases like this I think a Reviewed-by tag fits better than a Acked-by, as per Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst: -------------- Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: Reviewer's statement of oversight ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that: (a) I have carried out a technical review of this patch to evaluate its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into the mainline kernel. (b) Any problems, concerns, or questions relating to the patch have been communicated back to the submitter. I am satisfied with the submitter's response to my comments. (c) While there may be things that could be improved with this submission, I believe that it is, at this time, (1) a worthwhile modification to the kernel, and (2) free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion. (d) While I have reviewed the patch and believe it to be sound, I do not (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) make any warranties or guarantees that it will achieve its stated purpose or function properly in any given situation. A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious technical issues. Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a Reviewed-by tag for a patch. This tag serves to give credit to reviewers and to inform maintainers of the degree of review which has been done on the patch. Reviewed-by: tags, when supplied by reviewers known to understand the subject area and to perform thorough reviews, will normally increase the likelihood of your patch getting into the kernel. ---------- While an Acked-by conveys just some quick look was performed, and in this case you did what Reviewed-by signifies, I think. I'm tentatively converting this Acked-by to a Reviewed-by, please let me know if you disagree, Thanks a lot! - Arnaldo