From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756937AbcEaJBp (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:01:45 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:49671 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756609AbcEaJBj (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 05:01:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 18:01:28 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Namhyung Kim , Masami Hiramatsu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Hemant Kumar , Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli , Brendan Gregg Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core v9 00/16] perf-probe --cache and SDT support Message-Id: <20160531180128.a94d5d9b336d2b395f67274f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20160530161020.GC11853@kernel.org> References: <20160528151456.16098.90001.stgit@devbox> <20160530035458.GA13689@danjae.aot.lge.com> <20160530161020.GC11853@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.3 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:10:20 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:54:58PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > Hi Masami, > > > > On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 12:15:01AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Here is the 9th version of the patchset for probe-cache and > > > initial SDT support. > > > > > > The previous version is here; https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/14/107 > > > > > > This version just fixes 2 points according to Hemant's comment, > > > and split out the filename__readable() patch. > > > > > > Changes in v9: > > > - [1/16,2/16] split out the filename__readable() > > > - [7/16] Fix to show which event is deleted. > > > - [12/16] Update list_usage to show sdt option. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Thanks for doing this, I hope this gets merged soon. The patch 4 and > > 14 look a bit larger and would be better to be splitted IMHO. Other > > than that, all look good to me. > > > > Acked-by: Namhyung Kim > > Agreed, please split both patches, I applied 1-3, please resend from 4 > onwards. Hmm, for patch#4, it includes A. Rename and Export build_id_cache__cachedir() [14 LOC] B. Add perf_probe_event__copy() [73 LOC] C. Add (or fix and reenable) synthesize_perf_probe_point() [38 LOC] D. Introduce perf_cache interfaces (new/add/commit/delete) [320 LOC] E. Add --cache option for perf-probe [15 LOC] And E depends on D, D depends on A,B and C. And of course without E, other parts are just a deadweight.(no other one call it, just exported) Should I split them all? Thank you, > > - Arnaldo -- Masami Hiramatsu