[PATCH v4 02/48] perf stat: Add aggr creators that are passed a cpu.

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

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 at 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