linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] perf report: remove code to handle inline frames from browsers

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: <20170807201627.GH3647@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:16:27 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:     Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] perf report: remove code to handle inline
 frames from browsers

Em Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Montag, 7. August 2017 17:07:10 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:24:33PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > > The follow-up commits will make inline frames first-class citizens
> > > in the callchain, thereby obsoleting all of this special code.

> > So you are removing the feature to then reintroduce it, is that it? That
> > is not usual :-\

> > Normally we go on replacing bit by bit or have some ifdef, etc, to then
> > phase out the old code.

> > Perhaps in this case your approach is the best one, still have to look
> > at all of it, and it would help if the people behind the original code
> > could review this, Yao Jin, can you take a look at this patch series,
> > please?
 
> Yes, I also did that in v1 of this patch series. Note that I can easily squash 
> this, if needed. But I personally think for reviewing purposes, having it as 
> separate patches is far better.

Well, if it is a full blown alternative implementation, like it seems to
be (haven't started reviewing yet), probably.

- Arnaldo