Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1671270 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 03:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com> - 2017-06-21 10:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 14:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com> - 2017-06-21 16:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping] Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 16:40 +0200

#1671270 — Re: [PATCH v2] perf: libdw support for powerpc [ping]

Em Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:46:16AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:55:09 PM CEST Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:
 
> commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6
> Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
> Date:   Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200
 
>     perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw
     
>     So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before
>     the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common
>     scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still
>     interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing
>     perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.
> 
> If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.

Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?

- Arnaldo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671485

On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:46:16AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:55:09 PM CEST Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> > Just a quick question: Have you guys applied my recent patch:
> > 
> > commit 5ea0416f51cc93436bbe497c62ab49fd9cb245b6
> > Author: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@kdab.com>
> > Date:   Thu Jun 1 23:00:21 2017 +0200
> > 
> >     perf report: Include partial stacks unwound with libdw
> >     
> >     So far the whole stack was thrown away when any error occurred before
> >     the maximum stack depth was unwound. This is actually a very common
> >     scenario though. The stacks that got unwound so far are still
> >     interesting. This removes a large chunk of differences when comparing
> >     perf script output for libunwind and libdw perf unwinding.
> > 
> > If not, then this could explain the issue you are seeing.
> 
> Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?

I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks fine, 
but that's all I can say here.

Cheers

-- 
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671653

Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16:56AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?
 
> I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks
> fine, but that's all I can say here.

Ok, that would count as an Acked-by, i.e. from
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:

-------------------------

Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
explicit ack).

-------------------------

If you had a ppc machine _and_ had applied and tested the patch, that
would allow us to use a Tested-by tag.

Ok?

- Arnaldo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671701

On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 14:48:29 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16:56AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?
> > 
> > I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks
> > fine, but that's all I can say here.
> 
> Ok, that would count as an Acked-by, i.e. from
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
> has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
> mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
> into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
> explicit ack).
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> If you had a ppc machine _and_ had applied and tested the patch, that
> would allow us to use a Tested-by tag.

I see, I'm still unfamiliar with this process. But yes, do consider it an 
`Acked-by` from my side then.

Cheers

-- 
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671724

Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 04:19:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 14:48:29 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16:56AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > > On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 03:07:39 CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Hi Millian, can I take this as an Acked-by or Tested-by?
> > > 
> > > I have no access to any PowerPC hardware. In principle the code looks
> > > fine, but that's all I can say here.
> > 
> > Ok, that would count as an Acked-by, i.e. from
> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst:
> > 
> > -------------------------
> > 
> > Acked-by: is not as formal as Signed-off-by:.  It is a record that the acker
> > has at least reviewed the patch and has indicated acceptance.  Hence patch
> > mergers will sometimes manually convert an acker's "yep, looks good to me"
> > into an Acked-by: (but note that it is usually better to ask for an
> > explicit ack).
> > 
> > -------------------------
> > 
> > If you had a ppc machine _and_ had applied and tested the patch, that
> > would allow us to use a Tested-by tag.
> 
> I see, I'm still unfamiliar with this process. But yes, do consider it an 
> `Acked-by` from my side then.

Right, then there is another tag there that is relevant to this
discussion:

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1496312681-20133-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com

which will has the Message-ID of the message with this patch, embedded
in a URL that when clicked will bring you to the thread where the patch
was submitted and the acks, tested-by, reviewed-by, etc were provided,
so that we can go back and check the history of the patch.

- Arnaldo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web