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 S1753945AbbAEMuR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 07:50:17 -0500
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:45932 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751059AbbAEMuQ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 07:50:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 09:49:24 -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@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] perf tools: Append callchains only when requested
Message-ID: <20150105124924.GA2587@kernel.org>
References: <1419223455-4362-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <1419223455-4362-7-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20150103022504.GB24430@kernel.org>
 <CAM9d7ciu4dVKv+mT3fHPE=BdBfLXdU+6zD9STVEkzxET2REUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAM9d7ciu4dVKv+mT3fHPE=BdBfLXdU+6zD9STVEkzxET2REUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:01:26AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Em Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 01:44:14PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> >> The perf report --children can be called with callchain disabled so no
> >> need to append callchains.  Actually the root of callchain tree is not
> >> initialized properly in this case.

> >         I should have caught this using 'perf test', but it slipped
> > thru, please try running 'perf test cumulation', I noticed that it fails
> > and that if I revert this changeset it works again, can you please
> > check?
 
> This change should not affect the test result, but I guess the test
> somehow relied on the undefined behavior.  Actually I posted a patch
> to fix this problem.  So please take a look at the link below:
 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/22/561

Ok, missed this one, will get it on perf/urgent and look if there are
patches pending merging in that pull req.

Thanks,

- Arnaldo