Messages in this thread |  | | From | Ian Rogers <> | | Date | Wed, 6 May 2026 14:06:08 -0700 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 00/29] perf tool: Add evsel to perf_sample |
| |
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 3:23 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 10:51 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 01:55:39PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 1:20 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 09:57:02AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 9:40 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 05:52:57PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2026 at 1:10 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > [SNIP] > > > > > > > > I've picked the first 23 patches to tmp.perf-tools-next as the rest > > > > > > > > still has some issues. Also I've touched some commits to either remove > > > > > > > > some parts or split them into separate commits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Namhyung, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for doing this but I've done a similar clean up. To totally > > > > > > > separate the evsel refactoring from the rest of the changes, to fix > > > > > > > the address sanitizer issues with kwork, etc. I'll incorporate your > > > > > > > changes and then resend the series. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'd like to merge what's in the tmp.perf-tools-next unless > > > > > > there's a serious mistake. You can rebase the rest changes on top. > > > > > > > > > > I'd drop what's in tmp.perf-tools-next. Otherwise we're putting fixes > > > > > on top of fixes. Looking at v12 the sashiko issues are all minor and > > > > > the progression of the patches is more granular and natural. > > > > > > > > The goal is to reduce the amount of work (including review) during the > > > > merge window. Also I don't think there are many fixes in the tmp > > > > branch (have you looked at it?). I think it's ok to add fixes on top > > > > in this case but I can drop non-conversion patches if you want. > > > > > > While I'm glad the patches are landing, since the changes depending on > > > the refactor haven't been posted and won't make the 7.1 merge window, > > > I don't think there's a huge rush to land this series. That said, I > > > think v12 is in a good place regarding both the shape of the patches > > > and Sashiko happiness. > > > > Ok, then I'll drop the whole patches in the tmp.perf-tools-next except > > for the first one for a typo fix. The v12 will aim to the 7.2 cycle. > > Should I repost this series for perf-tools-next targeting 7.2? A merge > conflict will occur with the Python and perf script changes that are > out for review, the conflict is limited only to the Python API.
Ping.
Thanks, Ian
> Thanks, > Ian > > > Thanks, > > Namhyung > >
|  |