On 07/18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 17:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Steven, I am starting to think that it would be better to resend this
> > series (3-6 in mbox I sent) so that Peter and Frederic can take another
> > look. And I'll try to update the changelogs. Will d
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 17:44 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Steven, I am starting to think that it would be better to resend this
> series (3-6 in mbox I sent) so that Peter and Frederic can take another
> look. And I'll try to update the changelogs. Will do a bit later today.
Or do you mean 4-6? A
On 07/18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Oleg, did you update the change logs? These patches look the same as
> what was in your mbox. Or did Peter have an issues with the change log
> of another patch?
No, I didn't change them in any way, just resended.
To remind. 0/3 says "Compile tested only, not f
On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 11:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:00:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > These have been discussed, and they mostly live in the tracing
> > directory, but are perf related. Can you give me your Acked-by on them.
>
> I haven't lo
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:00:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Peter,
>
> These have been discussed, and they mostly live in the tracing
> directory, but are perf related. Can you give me your Acked-by on them.
I haven't looked in detail, but I trust Oleg. The only thing I can
remember is that
Peter,
These have been discussed, and they mostly live in the tracing
directory, but are perf related. Can you give me your Acked-by on them.
Thanks,
-- Steve
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 19:01 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Steven, we already discussed this a bit some time ago...
>
> DEC
On 06/18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps you are trying to say that this patch needs more work...
> >
> > Just because it can't be compiled? Pedant.
>
> No, just because when I first looked at it, I didn't think it would,
And your
On Tue, 2013-06-18 at 16:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 22:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
> > > > of __perf_task()
>
On 06/17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 22:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
> > > of __perf_task()
> >
> > Perhaps we can do something like below?
>
> Did this actually c
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 22:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
> > of __perf_task()
>
> Perhaps we can do something like below?
Did this actually compile for you?
>
> Then we can
>
> 1. ki
On 06/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
> of __perf_task()
Perhaps we can do something like below?
Then we can
1. kill __perf_addr(), __perf_count(), __perf_task() and
TP_perf_assign()
2. Add the fast path c
Hello.
Steven, we already discussed this a bit some time ago...
DECLARE_EVENT_CLASS()->perf_trace_##call() is not trivial because
of __perf_task(), but perhaps we can change other
perf_trace_buf_submit(task => NULL) callers.
And can't we factor out WARN_ONCE(size > PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE) ?
See 3/
12 matches
Mail list logo
