[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/4] Perf tool: Enable Arm arch timer counter and arm-spe's timestamp
    On 13/08/2020 12:18, Will Deacon wrote:
    > [ Adding John, as I only just realised he wasn't on CC and we were talking
    > about him! ]
    > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:59:01AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
    >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:53:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
    >>> Em Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:06:53AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier escreveu:
    >>>> The ARM SPE perf tools code is orphan and I don't have the cycles to
    >>>> pick it up. Leo has spent a lot of time in that code and as such I
    >>>> suggest that he starts maintaining it, probably following the same
    >>>> kind of arrangement you and I have for coresight.
    >>> Thats ok with me, I think we should reflect that on the MAINTAINERS
    >>> file, right?
    >>> We have this already:
    >>> R: John Garry <>
    >>> R: Will Deacon <>
    >>> L: (moderated for non-subscribers)
    >>> S: Supported
    >>> F: tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/
    >>> I think we should have entries for CoreSight and ARM SPE, one listing
    >>> you as the maintainer and the other listing Leo, right?
    >> Fine by me. I'll continue to maintain the in-kernel SPE driver, but I'd love
    >> to see somebody step up to looking after the userspace code. It's seriously
    >> unloved on arm64 :(
    >> I'd even be happy to see one or two M: entries added for
    >> tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/. I realistically don't have the time to
    >> take that on, but I'd be thrilled if any/all of John, Mathieu and Leo were
    >> to be listed there if they are willing to do so and can spare the time to
    >> look after it. Even just silly things like making sure the thing
    >> cross-compiles have been broken in the recent past, so it's not necessarily
    >> about handling huge amounts of incoming patches.
    >> In other words, rather than slice up the arm64 parts of the perf tool, I'd
    >> argue in favour of a joint maintainership model for all the arm64 bits, if
    >> we have a few willing volunteers.

    Right, it makes sense not to chop up too much, so happy to see
    scope and membership.

     \ /
      Last update: 2020-08-13 14:11    [W:10.744 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site