Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 01:54:58PM +0100, Milian Wolff escreveu: > On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 9:06:31 AM CET Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:33:25AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 06:19:44PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > > there's no check for return value of entry callback > > > > > > > > > > > > also I wonder would it be better to store into ips[] within > > > > > > the single loop all the time, and iterate throught it after > > > > > > forward/backward based on the callchain_param.order > > > > > > > > > > > > please check attached patch, totaly untested, probably leaking some > > > > > > index > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > any chance this could be done also for util/unwind-libdw.c ? > > > > > > > > > > That patch looks much better than mine. I'll try it out later next > > > > > week and > > > > > will also have a look at util/unwind-libdw.c. Question: How can I test > > > > > the > > > > > > > > So, you tried this patch, right? Jiri, have you submitted this in some > > > > other message I missed? > > > > > > nope.. I thought Milian would take it ;-) > > > > I can take it, as soon as you guys agree its something I should :-) > > Yes, I think it's good as-is. Should I resubmit Jiris patch? Considering that > he rewrote the patch, should he send it and add me as tester? How do you > handle such situations in the Kernel land?
So, I'll fix this all up by adding a Signed-off-by: Jiri and a Tested-by: Millian, which I think I can do according to the above messages and past experience, but the Correct Way to do this would be for Jiri to collect your Tested-by and resubmit in a separate message, not as a patch added to the text of a thread. Thanks, - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
