Messages in this thread | | | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:41:11 -0700 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] perf tools changes for v6.5 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:43 AM Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 15:00, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Please consider pulling perf tool changes. I'm doing this on behalf of > > Arnaldo as he's on vacation. This is my first pull request and hope I > > didn't break anything. :) > > Things look normal, although I find your pgp key situation confusing. > > I looked up your gpg key from the kernel.org pgp key repo, but that's > apparently not the one you used for signing this. > > So I have two keys for you, and neither of them are then signed by > others (although that part is probably just the usual pgp mess with > signatures being dropped due to flooded bogus signatures, which has > made the whole pgp infrastructure be essentially close to useless). > > Anyway, I wish the pgp key situation would be better, but it's not an > actual problem.
Sorry about that. Unfortunately I lost my old key due to a problem in my backups. So I had to create a new one and asked signing by others including Arnaldo and Jiri. Probably it's a problem in the pgp system as you mentioned, I don't know enough about that though.
> > HOWEVER. > > What _is_ a problem is that the end result doesn't build cleanly. > > The > > if (list_empty(&pmus)) > perf_pmu__scan(NULL); > > ibs_pmu = perf_pmu__find("ibs_op"); > > in the amd-ibs-via-core no longer works, and it seems that it should just be > > ibs_pmu = perf_pmus__find("ibs_op"); > > That's fine - I can do (and did) that merge resolution - and it's part > of my normal "merge and test build", but I'm slightly unhappy that I > wasn't told about this part. > > The actual data conflicts were trivial. But this was a semantic > conflict that was invisible to git, but showed up in build testing. > > And I *think* you should have known about it, because the conflict you > do talk about shows that > > +perf-y += amd-ibs-via-core-pmu.o > > as part of the actual data conflicts. > > Anyway, I've resolved this, and it wasn't a *problem*, and I'm just a > bit unhappy that it took me by surprise.
Sorry about the inconvenience. I'll check this kind of problem more seriously next time and let you know.
Thanks, Namhyung
| |