[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YD4yfh6rzKgoQZEy@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 09:41:34 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@...eweavers.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ulrich Czekalla <uczekalla@...eweavers.com>,
Huw Davies <huw@...eweavers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable
Em Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 11:17:01AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 08:47:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:35:04PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 02:59:16PM -0500, Nicholas Fraser wrote:
> > > > From 9fd0b3889f00ad13662879767d833309d8a035b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > From: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@...eweavers.com>
> > > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:24:03 -0500
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable
> > > >
> > > > This builds on the previous changes to tests/shell/buildid.sh, adding
> > > > tests for a PE file. It adds it to the build-id cache manually and, if
> > > > Wine is available, runs it under "perf record" and verifies that it was
> > > > added automatically.
> > > >
> > > > If wine is not installed, only warnings are printed; the test can still
> > > > exit 0.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@...eweavers.com>
> > >
> > > works nicely now, thanks
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> >
> > Thanks for checking it, but if you did a review, i.e. if you looked at
> > the code, made suggestions, the submitter acted upon those changes, you
> > looked again, etc, shouldn't this be a more appropriate:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I think we need to make these tags reflect more what really happened,
> > i.e. if you just glanced over and thought, quickly, that it seems
> > okayish, then Acked-by is what we should use, but if you gone thru the
> > trouble of actually _looking hard_ at it, sometimes multiple times, then
> > we should really use Reviewed-by and not take that lightly.
>
> ah right, I slipped to using ack regardles the effort ;-)
> I'll try to kick myself to use reviewed where appropriate
>
> for this one:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Thanks, applied to perf/core.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists