On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
>
> On 5 October 2014 20:24, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> Top-posting on purpose:
> >>
> >> Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
> >>
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:53:51AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:
Hi Jiri,
On 5 October 2014 20:24, Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:02:29PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:55:31AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > So you say that if we change a method, say, perf_evlist__open() to
> > accept a new argument, or change the type of one of its arguments,
> > with a
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:55:31AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> So you say that if we change a method, say, perf_evlist__open() to
> accept a new argument, or change the type of one of its arguments,
> with a good reason, it is acceptable and with just a change in the
> README
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:49:12PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:21AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Right, we now should always think that the great advantage of having
> > this code and its users in the same repo tree is going away, i.e. we
> > will
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:21AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Right, we now should always think that the great advantage of having
> this code and its users in the same repo tree is going away, i.e. we
> will not be able to improve the code by fixing mistakes that require
> changing
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:23:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:22:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > My preference would be for single object files, but the pressure to have
> > a written in stone library seems to just build up...
> Yeah, I think if
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:22:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> My preference would be for single object files, but the pressure to have
> a written in stone library seems to just build up...
Yeah, I think if we have an alternative way to easily integrate that
functionality into
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:22:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
My preference would be for single object files, but the pressure to have
a written in stone library seems to just build up...
Yeah, I think if we have an alternative way to easily integrate that
functionality into
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:23:42PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:22:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
My preference would be for single object files, but the pressure to have
a written in stone library seems to just build up...
Yeah, I think if we
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:21AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Right, we now should always think that the great advantage of having
this code and its users in the same repo tree is going away, i.e. we
will not be able to improve the code by fixing mistakes that require
changing its
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:49:12PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:40:21AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Right, we now should always think that the great advantage of having
this code and its users in the same repo tree is going away, i.e. we
will not be
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:55:31AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
So you say that if we change a method, say, perf_evlist__open() to
accept a new argument, or change the type of one of its arguments,
with a good reason, it is acceptable and with just a change in the
README explaining
Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:02:29PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 10:55:31AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
So you say that if we change a method, say, perf_evlist__open() to
accept a new argument, or change the type of one of its arguments,
with a good
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:53:49PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:12:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Right, and it is being a great exercise, thanks for the patience so far
> > ;-)
>
> I know, this is your secret agenda to keep me at bay working on
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:12:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Right, and it is being a great exercise, thanks for the patience so far
> ;-)
I know, this is your secret agenda to keep me at bay working on this! :-P
> Looking at those ifdefs we see things that are specific to
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:16:06PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > So, why have you commented out the perf_missing_features fallbacks? Are
> > they getting in the way somehow, what can we do upstream, i.e. in
> >
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> So, why have you commented out the perf_missing_features fallbacks? Are
> they getting in the way somehow, what can we do upstream, i.e. in
> tools/perf/util/ so that it gets closer to what you want to have?
>
> Ditto for
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:08:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:47PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:47PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git repo
> > url to see what it is using to prototype how I think this should be
> >
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
> The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
> at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
> tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
>
> [1]
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git repo
> url to see what it is using to prototype how I think this should be
> done.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/ras/rasd.git
--
Regards/Gruss,
Hi Arnaldo,
On 6 October 2014 16:58, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:07:26AM +0200, Robert Richter escreveu:
>> On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> > Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
>> > > The plan is to move the
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:07:26AM +0200, Robert Richter escreveu:
> On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
> > > The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
> > > xyarray, cpumap, thread_map
Hi,
On 6 October 2014 11:07, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
>> > The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
>> > xyarray, cpumap, thread_map etc; then evlist,
On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
> > The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
> > xyarray, cpumap, thread_map etc; then evlist, evsel, trace-event,
> > trace-event-parse; and finally
Hi Jiri,
On 5 October 2014 20:24, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> Top-posting on purpose:
>>
>> Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
>> approved, please post the time here so people can come.
>
> yep, it got
Hi Jiri,
On 5 October 2014 20:24, Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
yep, it got
On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
xyarray, cpumap, thread_map etc; then evlist, evsel, trace-event,
trace-event-parse; and finally integrate
Hi,
On 6 October 2014 11:07, Robert Richter r...@kernel.org wrote:
On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
xyarray, cpumap, thread_map etc; then
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:07:26AM +0200, Robert Richter escreveu:
On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The plan is to move the small and generic functions first: util,
xyarray, cpumap, thread_map etc; then
Hi Arnaldo,
On 6 October 2014 16:58, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo a...@kernel.org wrote:
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:07:26AM +0200, Robert Richter escreveu:
On 30.09.14 10:24:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The plan is to move
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git repo
url to see what it is using to prototype how I think this should be
done.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/ras/rasd.git
--
Regards/Gruss,
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
[1]
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:47PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git repo
url to see what it is using to prototype how I think this should be
done.
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
So, why have you commented out the perf_missing_features fallbacks? Are
they getting in the way somehow, what can we do upstream, i.e. in
tools/perf/util/ so that it gets closer to what you want to have?
Ditto for all
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:08:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:47PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:58:56AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Agreed, we can use rasd as a reference, I'm now looking for the git repo
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:16:06PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
So, why have you commented out the perf_missing_features fallbacks? Are
they getting in the way somehow, what can we do upstream, i.e. in
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:12:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Right, and it is being a great exercise, thanks for the patience so far
;-)
I know, this is your secret agenda to keep me at bay working on this! :-P
Looking at those ifdefs we see things that are specific to
Em Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 09:53:49PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 04:12:27PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Right, and it is being a great exercise, thanks for the patience so far
;-)
I know, this is your secret agenda to keep me at bay working on this!
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 02:24:01PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:24:42 +0200
> Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > Top-posting on purpose:
> > >
> > > Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
>
On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:24:42 +0200
Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Top-posting on purpose:
> >
> > Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
> > approved, please post the time here so people can come.
>
> yep, it got
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 08:24:42PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Top-posting on purpose:
> >
> > Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
> > approved, please post the time here so people can come.
>
> yep,
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Top-posting on purpose:
>
> Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
> approved, please post the time here so people can come.
yep, it got accepted, ther schedule is:
Friday, October 17, 2014 from 9:00am
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
Thanks.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:24:16AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
> >
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
Thanks.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:24:16AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
yep, it got accepted, ther schedule is:
Friday, October 17, 2014 from 9:00am –
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 08:24:42PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
yep, it got
On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:24:42 +0200
Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
approved, please post the time here so people can come.
yep, it
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 02:24:01PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2014 20:24:42 +0200
Jiri Olsa jo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Top-posting on purpose:
Btw, jolsa, if you get your LCE proposal for the perf splitting
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
> The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
> at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
> tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
>
> [1]
The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/ras/rasd.git/
[2] https://git.linaro.org/people/jean.pihet/rasd.git
rasd
The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/ras/rasd.git/
[2] https://git.linaro.org/people/jean.pihet/rasd.git
rasd
Em Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:06:21AM +0200, Jean Pihet escreveu:
The RAS Deamon (rasd) as available at [1] and the development version
at [2], allows to enable kernel tracepoints and outputs the
tracepoints fields according to the kernel format.
[1]
54 matches
Mail list logo
