[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d69fa17-bf8c-cabe-3417-8bbd11c48b40@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 16:10:44 +0100
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Jing Zhang <renyu.zj@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Zhuo Song <zhuo.song@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Shuai Xue <xueshuai@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] perf test: Add pmu-event test for "Compat" and new
event_field.
On 01/08/2023 10:19, Jing Zhang wrote:
>>> I need to double check because I was testing against 6.3-rc2.
>> That 6.3-rc2, was for the the kernel? Or baseline for this series? See see maintainers for git/branch to base perf tool dev on.
>>
> I have now developed based on the latest perf tool, but I'm still confused.
> "matching_pmu" does not seem to have any effect. No matter what value matching_pmu
> is, it will not affect the final test result.
Yeah, that is what I was saying - matching_pmu is not used. Can you fix
that up (to be used), please?
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists