[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180119155535.GE23453@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 12:55:35 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
namhyung@...nel.org, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@....com>, suzuki.poulosi@....com,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding
library
Em Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 08:24:56AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
> On 19 January 2018 at 08:12, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:58:19AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:27:43PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> > > Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> >> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:41:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> > > > > Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before
> >> > > > > the required version was widely available in distros?
> >> > >
> >> > > > > I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > Enabling it once it became widely available:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > 24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default")
> >> > >
> >> > > > > Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git
> >> > > > > repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > 6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think at that time we did not have a way to hide the check,
> >> > > > now we have FEATURE_DISPLAY seprated so we can still check
> >> > > > for it, but users won't be bothered with [ FAIL ] output
> >> > >
> >> > > Ok, users won't be bothered with the fail output, but we tried hard to
> >> > > get the build fast by having it only test for things that are widely
> >> > > available, right? I.e. if we know something is not widely available then
> >> > > we better not try to build with it and get faster builds, wasn't that
> >> > > part of the rationale in the babeltrace case?
> >> > >
> >> > > If one has to build from sources some library, then its not a problem to
> >> > > have in the make command line a LIBOPENCSD=1 switch?
> >> >
> >> > right, we can do it like that
> >>
> >> So I'm applying v2 and we can go on from there, to make progress, ok?
> >> I'm adding your Acked-by to all but the build ones, ok?
> >
> > I think v3 was in better shape.. wrt tabs and overall display
> >
> > jirka
>
> Jiri is correct - V3 should be considered.
So, please take a look at my perf/core branch, hopefully my mistake was
just on the message saying I would apply v2, check that v3 was what I
applied.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists