[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24a5c3d0-184c-7606-7e44-a1586c27a6cd@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 12:13:12 +0800
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
<peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <jolsa@...hat.com>,
<namhyung@...nel.org>, <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
<irogers@...gle.com>, <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
<hushiyuan@...wei.com>, <hewenliang4@...wei.com>
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix arm64 gap between kernel start and
module end
on 2020/3/30 21:11, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:41:11PM +0800, Kemeng Shi escreveu:
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>> index 393b9895c..37cbfa5e9 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/arm64/util/Build
>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ libperf-y += header.o
>> libperf-y += tsc.o
>> libperf-y += sym-handling.o
>> libperf-y += kvm-stat.o
>> +libperf-y += machine.o
>
> You made the patch against an old perf codebase, right? This libperf-y
> above was changed to perf-y here:
>
I'm sorry. I checked the problem in https://github.com/torvalds/linux.git,
but I forget to make patch against it.
> commit 5ff328836dfde0cef9f28c8b8791a90a36d7a183
> Author: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> Date: Wed Feb 13 13:32:39 2019 +0100
>
> perf tools: Rename build libperf to perf
>
> ----
>
> I'm fixing this up, please check my perf/core branch later to see that
> all is working as intended.
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git perf/core
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Arnaldo
>
I test it and it works fine, thanks for fixing up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists