lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] HiSilicon hip08 uncore PMU events additions
Em Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 05:30:46PM +0100, John Garry escreveu:
> >
> > > > > > > The missing events were originally mentioned in
> > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/14/645, when upstreaming the JSONs initially.
> >
> > > > > > > It also includes a fix for a DDRC eventname.
> >
> > > > > > Could I get these JSON updates picked up please? Maybe they were missed
> > > > > > earlier. Let me know if I should re-post.
> >
> > > > > Looking at them now.
> >
> > > > It would be really good if somehow we managed to have someone from the
> > > > ARM community to check and provide a Reviewed-by for those, i.e. someone
> > > > else than the poster to look at it and check that its ok, would that be
> > > > possible?
> >
> > > For this specific case, I'm not sure how much traction or value there would
> > > be since we're just adding some missing events for custom IP.
> >
> > Someone else inside your organization?
>
> For this, sure. Colleague Shaokun (cc'ed) provided me the metadata for these
> JSON additions, so when he returns from national vacation I can ask him to
> provide necessary tags.

Ok

> If nobody is available, then so
> > be it, let that be clear in the JSON file (see below) and then I
> > wouldn't be waiting for acks/reviewed-by messages for such cases.
> >
> > > But I do agree that more review of JSONs from the community is required - as
> > > I brought up here regarding a recent addition:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/749a0b8e-2bfd-28f6-b34d-dc72ef3d3a74@huawei.com/
> > >
> > > Can we enforce that at least linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org and/or
> > > get_maintainer.pl results is cc'ed on anything ARM specific as a start?
> >
> > I think this should be the case, would you be willing to add a note to
> > that effect at the top of the JSON files?
>
> Adding notes to JSONs would be painful unless the parser is updated to to
> filter them out. And, as I understand, the x86 JSONs are autogenerated, so
> that tooling would need to handle this also.

Ok

> >
> > And an extra note at tools/perf/pmu-events/README telling users to look
> > at the json files to figure out what Reviewed-by tags are required for
> > something to get merged? One extra Reviewed-by would be ok?Who would be
> > the reviewers for each arch? Would that be at the top of the JSON file?
>
> There is no per-arch JSON, and, in addition, I think that would be hard to
> formulate such formal rules.

Ok

> As an alternative, how about just add a maintainers entry for reviewers per
> arch? As a start, I don't mind being added there for arm64:
>
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -12767,6 +12767,10 @@ F: arch/*/events/*
> F: arch/*/events/*/*
> F: tools/perf/
>
> +PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM ARM64 PMU EVENTS
> +R: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
> +F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64
> +
>
> Patches per-arch should have some nod/tag from a member of the respective
> list. Or at very least be cc'ed :)

Another Ok, please send a formal patch, and it would be really nice if
the other ARM folks would... Ack that ;-) :-) And provide extra entries
for the other pmu-events directories or even for specific files, which
is a possibility, right?

On my side I'll script a bit more and make sure that a post commit hook
warns me if the right tag is not present.

- Arnaldo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-04 21:10    [W:0.059 / U:2.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site