linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH perf/core v9 00/16] perf-probe --cache and SDT support

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]

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>