linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/16] perf report: properly handle branch count in match

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:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:27:41 +0200
From:   Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
To:     ravi <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/16] perf report: properly handle branch count in match_chain

On Montag, 16. Oktober 2017 06:18:17 CEST ravi wrote:
> On Friday 13 October 2017 07:38 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:39:03AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 
escreveu:
> >> Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:33:05PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> >>> Some of the code paths I introduced before returned too early
> >>> without running the code to handle a node's branch count.
> >>> By refactoring match_chain to only have one exit point, this
> >>> can be remedied.
> >> 
> >> Fixing up this one now.
> > 
> > Millian, this is all fresher in your mind, can you please take a look at
> > my perf/core branch and check if the change i made to ]PATCH v5 09/16]
> > "perf report: compare symbol name for inlined frames when matching" is
> > ok wrt Ravi's fix and then, please, rebase v5 on top of what is there?
> > 
> > Ravi, please take a look at this as well, to see if with these changes
> > your fix remains valid, ok?
> 
> Yes Arnaldo, my changes are still valid.
> 
> Milian, Can you please change this patch such that it incorporates dso
> comparison for CCKEY_FUNCTION.

Arnaldo has already done that.

> ( Also, will that be good to change macro to CCKEY_FUNCTION_DOS ?)

Personally, I don't think so. The DSO compare is, imo, just an implementation 
detail.

Cheers

-- 
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@...b.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts