[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1602121709380.3656@macbook-air>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:12:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>, jolsa@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...e.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
acme@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, eranian@...gle.com,
peterz@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: {SPAM?} Re: [tip:perf/core] perf/x86: Move perf_event.c
............... => x86/events/core.c
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> see for example how Git still knows that we had a
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c initial file name.
>
> Or how you did an optimization in c48b60538c3ba when the file was already named
> cpu/perf_event.c! :-)
yes, for simple renames it works, but once files start getting
"reorganized" and split up it gets tricky. For example trying to track
things across the single perf_event.h to the separate perf_event.h files
after the UAPI split is always a pain.
But anyway, it sounds like the renames are being done for reasonably good
reasons, it's just the tip commit message that came my way didn't have
this extra context.
Thanks,
Vince
Powered by blists - more mailing lists