From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: =?utf-8?q?=28no_subject=29?= Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:03:15 +0200 Message-ID: <1467889395.23985.72.camel@citrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5205371363274832467==" Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bL75V-0005ka-5D for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2016 11:03:21 +0000 In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: George Dunlap Cc: xen-devel , Anshul Makkar , Wei Liu , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============5205371363274832467== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-MfDm22osr/cVm20WWtD/" --=-MfDm22osr/cVm20WWtD/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 10:36 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Dario Faggioli > wrote: > >=20 > > in both xenalyze and formats (for xentrace_format). > >=20 > > In particular, in xenalyze, now that we have the precision > > of the fixed point load values in the tracepoint, show both > > the raw value and the (easier to interpreet) percentage. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli > The change looks good in itself; but it makes me realize that > technically by changing the trace format, the previous patch > introduced a regression which is fixed here.=C2=A0=C2=A0There's a part of= me > that's tempted to overlook it because it's minor, but on balance I > think we should try to be diligent with this sort of thing. >=20 Sure! > Could you re-send this with the trace change moved from the previous > patch to this patch? >=20 So, you're saying I should change both Xen, xentrace_format and xenalyze.c all at once, in the same patch, right? I'm asking just to double check, as, although I see your point, separating things by component seemed a good thing to do to me, even at the price you describe, and I've done it before. :-) As said, I'm fine doing that, I just want to be sure this is what you are asking. > If you don't make any other changes, you can retain the reviewed-by > of > the previous patch, and add this one to this patch: >=20 > Reviewed-by: George Dunlap > Ok, thanks. Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-MfDm22osr/cVm20WWtD/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJXfjbzAAoJEBZCeImluHPu0CgP/1ibRlVggfuXPtP0m/YQusWx mjbg17fTh29gsbH1JrAG8xocVHxEmim3nSQO7nj0m5PzBDwEYGbX8y3KAVlyVDb9 C/Mfjm/ZjX+5HUGhnfGlQ/Yzr4irn0WXv86c4XPyJW62BRF+4bPzWxpYUgeXUNYq SOqlmTC2Vpai84900LF9MeZIJX8AZjrqaK/tXPXLzNaVCTPenV/4SRmgCwosabtR uK6oigCags35qr5yqN/rngB7Rr2HuwNpeDEfgMxBBRg0LQ55+MGkI0+uTitEoj4F ktZDgooxTXup9E41LITEA8L22a21x7TWgyW09LFkLCQ83ZznTM65QoU388po/bCT 7Ia054LuS9C+6xDyTSysgusF4xWQLzTNkorLVtgUgptwka6ORhXs5g8gfCpg0l4Q NAWyqHpwIl4v1oKO1TYCxFDQa0heZU+i5nRfr9KuHhS9BisTgxazoMDuENgDyuAR cRUvvDcqRm5IBf0BCr3XojWQyNM9V5MhZqyZGI0q2ItSEXbjTQ30ROM62VaL+8CB 4Z3oSjIkDtXHNFbJPoYBbYLJao7jSdbWJZVGldh3+Gi2xWImsWPVjEd7L7b1QgPD cY5x429PJzMUXWJ3oLNHG25SClgmfWThjjdmwe+/y0untrv0r4t0ht6jIp7BDXNk HN2nsGL5hZxu36s1sDzV =2Rlq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-MfDm22osr/cVm20WWtD/-- --===============5205371363274832467== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLnhlbi5v cmcveGVuLWRldmVsCg== --===============5205371363274832467==--