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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 18:01:28 +0900 From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Hemant Kumar <hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH perf/core v9 00/16] perf-probe --cache and SDT support On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:10:20 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> 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 <namhyung@...nel.org> > > 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 <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists