[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260128085945.GF3372621@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:59:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tao Chen <chen.dylane@...ux.dev>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, song@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
eddyz87@...il.com, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...ichev.me,
haoluo@...gle.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 1/3] perf: Add rctx in perf_callchain_entry
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 03:43:29PM +0800, Tao Chen wrote:
> Record rctx inside the perf_callchain_entry itself, when callers of
> get_callchain_entry no longer care about the assignment of rctx, and
> will be used in the next patch.
Sorry, what?
The recursion context is very much about the caller, and very much not
about the data. This just doesn't make sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists