> > whole > > > >> stack. > > > >> > + */ > > > >> > > > >> Andi is using some sanity checks: > > > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141584447819894&w=2 > > > >> I guess this could be applied in here, once his patch gets in. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Are you suggesting me to remove the comments, or rebase the > whole > > > > patch to Andi's patch once it's merged? > > > > > > > > The branch history in Andi's patch is different as the call stack, > > > > although they are both from LBR. > > > > Andi's branch history recording branch records for taken branches, > > > > interrupts, and exceptions. > > > > While the LBR call stack records for the call stack. > > > > > > Right. And branch history can overlap with normal callchains so > > > additional check in there is to remove duplication. While LBR call > > > stack is separated to user only so there should be no overlap. > > > > hum, it seemed to me like the remove_loops function could be used for > > this one as well.. but anyway I meant that this can be introduced > > later after Andi's change gets in > > I see. I will apply Andi's remove_loops. >
As Namhyung said, there is no overlap for LBR call stack. The user callchain is not a mix. It's from either LBR or FP. so remove_loops doesn't fit to the LBR call stack. Sorry for the confusion from my last reply. Thanks, Kan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
