‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, March 22, 2019 12:27 AM, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 01:29:11AM +0000, Solomon Tan wrote: > > > The following error was thrown when compiling `tools/perf` using OpenCSD > > v0.11.1. This patch fixes said error. > > > > CC util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-log.o > > CC util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.o > > util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c: In function > > ‘cs_etm_decoder__buffer_range’: > > util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c:370:2: error: enumeration value > > ‘OCSD_INSTR_WFI_WFE’ not handled in switch [-Werror=switch-enum] > > switch (elem->last_i_type) { > > ^~~~~~ > > CC util/intel-pt-decoder/intel-pt-decoder.o > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors > > > > > > Because `OCSD_INSTR_WFI_WFE` case was added only in v0.11.0, the minimum > > required OpenCSD library version for this patch is no longer v0.10.0. > > > > Signed-off-by: Solomon Tan solomonbsto...@protonmail.ch > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c | 4 ++-- > > tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c > > b/tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c > > index d68eb4fb40cc..2b0e02c38870 100644 > > --- a/tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c > > +++ b/tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c > > @@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ > > /* > > > > - Check OpenCSD library version is sufficient to provide required features > > */ > > -#define OCSD_MIN_VER ((0 << 16) | (10 << 8) | (0)) > > +#define OCSD_MIN_VER ((0 << 16) | (11 << 8) | (0)) > > #if !defined(OCSD_VER_NUM) || (OCSD_VER_NUM < OCSD_MIN_VER) > > -#error "OpenCSD >= 0.10.0 is required" > > +#error "OpenCSD >= 0.11.0 is required" > > #endif > > > > > > int main(void) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c > > b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c > > index ba4c623cd8de..39fe21e1cf93 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c > > @@ -387,6 +387,7 @@ cs_etm_decoder__buffer_range(struct cs_etm_decoder > > *decoder, > > break; > > case OCSD_INSTR_ISB: > > case OCSD_INSTR_DSB_DMB: > > > > - case OCSD_INSTR_WFI_WFE: > > case OCSD_INSTR_OTHER: > > default: > > packet->last_instr_taken_branch = false; > > > > > > > > -- > > 2.19.1 > > On my side this patch is no different from V3, i.e it doesn't pass checkpatch > and it doesn't apply on my next tree. > > Mathieu > > > > > pub RSA 2048/C88289A6 2018-05-09solomonbsto...@protonmail.ch > solomonbsto...@protonmail.ch > > > sub RSA 2048/7C5E8D6D 2018-05-09 I created a new branch from `next` for the patch mentioned above. Should I have made the patch directly on the `next` branch instead? I ran the following 2 commands to test the files I edited: ``` perl scripts/checkpatch.pl -f tools/build/feature/test-libopencsd.c perl scripts/checkpatch.pl -f tools/perf/util/cs-etm-decoder/cs-etm-decoder.c ``` The commands reported that the files "has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission." For your kind advice please. Thank you. Solomon Tan