Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jan 2022 15:52:11 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 02/48] perf stat: Add aggr creators that are passed a cpu. |
| |
Em Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:36:49AM -0800, Ian Rogers escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:10 AM John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > On 05/01/2022 06:13, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > > > +struct aggr_cpu_id cpu_map__get_socket(struct perf_cpu_map *map, int idx, > > > + void *data) > > > +{ > > > + if (idx < 0 || idx > map->nr) > > > + return cpu_map__empty_aggr_cpu_id(); > > > + > > > + return cpu_map__get_socket_aggr_by_cpu(map->map[idx], data); > > > +} > > > + > > > > > > This is later deleted in the series. Can the series be reworked so that > > we don't add stuff and then later delete it? One reason for that > > approach is that we don't spend time reviewing something which will be > > deleted, especially in such a big series... > > Hi John, > > I think you are asking to squash: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220105061351.120843-8-irogers@google.com/ > into this change. There are other similar related changes that may > also be squashed. The changes are trying to introduce a new API and > then add changes to switch over to using it. This is with a view to > making bisection easier, have each change only do 1 thing and so on. I > believe the format of the patches is house style, but it is fine to > squash changes together too. Having sent patches to Arnaldo and having > had them split I'm reluctant to do a v5 with them squashed without him > expressing a preference.
Right, sometimes this is needed, I'm getting the patchkit now to test build it in my containers and will go patch by patch reviewing.
- Arnaldo
> Thanks, > Ian > > > If it really makes sense to do it this way then fine. > > > > Thanks, > > John
--
- Arnaldo
| |