From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool integration
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:29:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130602072958.GA20057@nazgul.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130601161555.GE2132@rric.localhost>
On Sat, Jun 01, 2013 at 06:15:55PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> Instead I reviewed the code while developing it with certain goals in
> mind. Most changes I found necessary while building and running a
> modified version during development. That never could be found in a
> patch review. These changes are what we actually want to see in git
> history.
No, we don't. Not if my patches were never a baseline to begin with.
> And your argument that changes should be merged to reduce review
> effort would actually mean to drop all the code you introduce which is
> later removed in my patches (see below for the diff stats).
Yes, absolutely, if we have to. My version is an initial functionality
proposal and nothing more. It is Work-In-Progress, and, as such, is
very much a subject to change, or even a complete rewrite - whatever it
takes.
> I also don't think we need to re-review your patches. Most of it has
> been reviewed and should also not change much to avoid rebase
No, my patches haven't really been reviewed since they've been a moving
target from the very beginning. IOW, you simply stating that fixing
bugs against code which hasn't been the base line and agreed upon
functionality in the first place, is simply unnecessary churn.
If you want to document the goals you had in mind, just write that as
a comment in the code if it is very important or put it in a commit
message.
IOW, my patches were never ready but RFC. Nothing more.
> conflicts. In my point of view they are fine to be applied to a perf
> topic branch. Ingo, would this be ok? There is no messy history if we
> later just apply my patches on top. So no, I don't agree with you here
> to merge some of my patches.
Again, my patches are simply RFC and a moving target functionality-wise.
If you feel that something was done not in the way it should be done,
then pieces of maybe even them all should be thrown away and done right.
Simply redoing them or asking me to change them is all I'm saying.
Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-02 7:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-31 8:47 Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 01/16] perf, persistent: Fix build error for no-tracepoints configs Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:05 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 02/16] perf, persistent: Fix attr size Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:05 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 03/16] perf, persistent: Setting default buffer size to 512k as in perf tools Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 04/16] perf, persistent: Print error code on failure when adding events Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:10 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 05/16] perf, persistent: Return resonable error code Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 06/16] perf, persistent: Return -EACCES if mapped buffers must be readonly Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 07/16] perf, persistent: Rework struct pers_event_desc Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 08/16] perf, persistent: Remove rb_put() Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 09/16] perf, persistent: Introduce get_persistent_event() Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 10/16] perf, persistent: Reworking perf_get_persistent_event_fd() Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 11/16] perf, persistent: Protect event lists with mutex Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 12/16] perf, persistent: Avoid adding identical events Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 13/16] perf, persistent: Implementing a persistent pmu Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 14/16] perf, persistent: Name each persistent event Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 15/16] perf, persistent: Exposing persistent events using sysfs Robert Richter
2013-05-31 8:47 ` [PATCH 16/16] perf, persistent: Allow multiple users for an event Robert Richter
2013-06-03 13:49 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-06-04 8:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-06-04 9:19 ` Jiri Olsa
2013-06-04 9:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-06-07 13:47 ` Robert Richter
2013-05-31 9:15 ` [PATCH 00/16] perf, persistent: Kernel updates for perf tool integration Borislav Petkov
2013-05-31 9:32 ` Robert Richter
2013-05-31 12:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-06-01 16:15 ` Robert Richter
2013-06-02 7:29 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130602072958.GA20057@nazgul.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rric@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®