On 06/02/2017 04:11 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
[]
>>
>> If you have specific patches in Jiri's branch that you think are good to
>> go, just point me to them and I'll cherry-pick them.
>>
>> I'm looking now at the one you pointed out above (070b9644981e).
>
> Just looked, but the
On 06/02/2017 04:11 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
[]
>>
>> If you have specific patches in Jiri's branch that you think are good to
>> go, just point me to them and I'll cherry-pick them.
>>
>> I'm looking now at the one you pointed out above (070b9644981e).
>
> Just looked, but the
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
SNIP
> > >
> > > I suggest we should move the discussion to the linux-perf-users
> > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > Your thoughts?
> >
> > If you have specific patches in Jiri's branch that you think are good to
> > go,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:11:05AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
SNIP
> > >
> > > I suggest we should move the discussion to the linux-perf-users
> > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > Your thoughts?
> >
> > If you have specific patches in Jiri's branch that you think are good to
> > go,
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter wrote:
SNBIP
> > I started fixing it some time ago, but got distracted, if you are
> > interested, you're welcome to pick up from my branch ;-)
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> >
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter wrote:
SNBIP
> > I started fixing it some time ago, but got distracted, if you are
> > interested, you're welcome to pick up from my branch ;-)
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git
> >
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:09:36AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter escreveu:
> > On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > >> Em Thu, Jun 01,
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:09:36AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter escreveu:
> > On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > >> Em Thu, Jun 01,
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter escreveu:
> On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> >>> Command perf test -v 14
Em Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Thomas-Mich Richter escreveu:
> On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> >>> Command perf test -v 14
On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
>>> Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
>>> always reports success even if the test
On 06/01/2017 11:04 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
>>> Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
>>> always reports success even if the test
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> > Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
> > always reports success even if the test case fails.
> > It works correctly if you also
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:20:38AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> > Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
> > always reports success even if the test case fails.
> > It works correctly if you also
Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
> always reports success even if the test case fails.
> It works correctly if you also specify -F (for don't fork).
Thanks for working on this, adding Jiri Olsa, that
Em Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 02:34:41PM +0200, Thomas Richter escreveu:
> Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
> always reports success even if the test case fails.
> It works correctly if you also specify -F (for don't fork).
Thanks for working on this, adding Jiri Olsa, that
Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
always reports success even if the test case fails.
It works correctly if you also specify -F (for don't fork).
root@s35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -v 14
14: Setup struct perf_event_attr :
--- start ---
running
Command perf test -v 14 (Setup struct perf_event_attr test)
always reports success even if the test case fails.
It works correctly if you also specify -F (for don't fork).
root@s35lp76 perf]# ./perf test -v 14
14: Setup struct perf_event_attr :
--- start ---
running
18 matches
Mail list logo
