Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:17:01 +0100 | From | Jiri Olsa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable |
| |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 08:47:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 09:35:04PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 02:59:16PM -0500, Nicholas Fraser wrote: > > > From 9fd0b3889f00ad13662879767d833309d8a035b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > From: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@codeweavers.com> > > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:24:03 -0500 > > > Subject: [PATCH] perf buildid-cache: Add test for PE executable > > > > > > This builds on the previous changes to tests/shell/buildid.sh, adding > > > tests for a PE file. It adds it to the build-id cache manually and, if > > > Wine is available, runs it under "perf record" and verifies that it was > > > added automatically. > > > > > > If wine is not installed, only warnings are printed; the test can still > > > exit 0. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Fraser <nfraser@codeweavers.com> > > > > works nicely now, thanks > > > > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> > > Thanks for checking it, but if you did a review, i.e. if you looked at > the code, made suggestions, the submitter acted upon those changes, you > looked again, etc, shouldn't this be a more appropriate: > > Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> > > ? > > I think we need to make these tags reflect more what really happened, > i.e. if you just glanced over and thought, quickly, that it seems > okayish, then Acked-by is what we should use, but if you gone thru the > trouble of actually _looking hard_ at it, sometimes multiple times, then > we should really use Reviewed-by and not take that lightly.
ah right, I slipped to using ack regardles the effort ;-) I'll try to kick myself to use reviewed where appropriate
for this one:
Reviewed-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
thanks, jirka
| |