linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf updates and fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100326075817.GA27394@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:58:17 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Archs <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf updates and fixes


* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 02:52:35AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > The series is not yet mergeable because it would break PowerPc (hot regs 
> > snapshot API has been changed, and I don't know how to update PowerPc for 
> > that).
> > 
> > But if you're fine with the ideas, I can integrate the necessary changes 
> > to fix this, and also separate fixes and updates.
> 
> The patch below adds the necessary stuff for powerpc.  You could fold it 
> into your "perf: Move perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs into a macro" patch, or 
> keep it as a separate patch in the series (though that would make preserving 
> bisectability more difficult).

Since the series needs a resend anyway folding back ought to be fine i think.

I'm wondering whether this should get into tip:perf/urgent - or in 
tip:perf/core for 2.6.35.

It fixes sw event call trace ugliness, but is that a 2.6.34 regression? Is 
there any other aspect of the series that points towards accelerating this 
into .34?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/