On Monday 17 October 2016 08:15 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:13:38PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>
>> On Monday 10 October 2016 10:26 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:19:28PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>>> On Monday 10 October 2016 10:09 PM, Naveen N. Rao wrote:
>>>>> On 2016/10/10 01:24PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>>>>> Em Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:29:02PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>>>>>> Move arch specific stuff from util/annotate.c to their respective
>>>>>>> files in util/annotate directory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No functionality changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bango...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/Build              |   1 +
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate.c         | 259 
>>>>>>> +++----------------------------------
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate.h         |  23 ++++
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate/Build     |   3 +
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate/arm.c     |  50 +++++++
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate/powerpc.c |  63 +++++++++
>>>>>>>  tools/perf/util/annotate/x86.c     | 107 +++++++++++++++
>>>>>> We already have a per arch area: tools/perf/arch/
>>>>> I think this was done to support cross-arch annotate similar to the 
>>>>> remote unwind support with util/libunwind/
>>>> Yes, because tools/perf/arch/ will only include host arch code.
>>> Ok, thanks for clarifying.
>> Hi Arnaldo,
>>
>> Are you ok with this patchset. Please let me know if you want to respin it.
> We're in the merge window, and I'm having to deal with other patches
> requiring more work than I was expecting to invest on them, so no time
> to revisit this, sorry, but I have not forgot about it, will get back to
> it as time permits,

Sure, no issues. :)

-Ravi

Reply via email to