[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DDA97AA1-E60E-4075-8569-73C65270E43B@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 23:30:52 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Introduce perf-stat -b for BPF programs
> On Dec 9, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Em Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:16:44AM -0800, Song Liu escreveu:
>> This set introduces perf-stat -b option to count events for BPF programs.
>> This is similar to bpftool-prog-profile. But perf-stat makes it much more
>> flexible.
>>
>> Changes v2 => v3:
>> 1. Small fixes in Makefile.perf and bpf_counter.c (Jiri)
>> 2. Rebased on top of bpf-next. This is because 1/2 conflicts with some
>> patches in bpftool/Makefile.
>
> Can't you split that up so that I can process the perf part and the
> bpftool goes via the bpf-next tree?
Actually, I can make it conflict-less, so we can route everything together.
I also put the change to bpftool/Makefile in a separate patch in v4.
Thanks,
Song
Powered by blists - more mailing lists