[PATCH v2 01/10] perf tools: Integrating the CoreSight decoding library

[Mathieu Poirier]

On 19 January 2018 at 08:55, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at kernel.org> wrote:
> Em Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 08:24:56AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
>> On 19 January 2018 at 08:12, Jiri Olsa <jolsa at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:58:19AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> >> Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:27:43PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> >> > > Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>> >> > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:41:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> >> > > > >       Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before
>> >> > > > > the required version was widely available in distros?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >       I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > Enabling it once it became widely available:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >    24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default")
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git
>> >> > > > > repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >   6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default")
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I think at that time we did not have a way to hide the check,
>> >> > > > now we have FEATURE_DISPLAY seprated so we can still check
>> >> > > > for it, but users won't be bothered with [ FAIL ] output
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ok, users won't be bothered with the fail output, but we tried hard to
>> >> > > get the build fast by having it only test for things that are widely
>> >> > > available, right? I.e. if we know something is not widely available then
>> >> > > we better not try to build with it and get faster builds, wasn't that
>> >> > > part of the rationale in the babeltrace case?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If one has to build from sources some library, then its not a problem to
>> >> > > have in the make command line a LIBOPENCSD=1 switch?
>> >> >
>> >> > right, we can do it like that
>> >>
>> >> So I'm applying v2 and we can go on from there, to make progress, ok?
>> >> I'm adding your Acked-by to all but the build ones, ok?
>> >
>> > I think v3 was in better shape.. wrt tabs and overall display
>> >
>> > jirka
>>
>> Jiri is correct - V3 should be considered.
>
> So, please take a look at my perf/core branch, hopefully my mistake was
> just on the message saying I would apply v2, check that v3 was what I
> applied.

The correct version was applied - thanks.

Mathieu

>
> - Arnaldo