[0/5] arm64: perf: Proper cap_user_time* support

Message

Peter Zijlstra May 12, 2020, 12:40 p.m. UTC

Prompted by Leo's patches, here a series that corrects the arm64 perf cap_user_time situation.

Comments

Leo Yan July 13, 2020, 6:08 a.m. UTC | #1

Hi Peter,

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Prompted by Leo's patches, here a series that corrects the arm64 perf cap_user_time situation.

I checked the latest mainline kernel code base, found this patch set
are missed to merge into it.

Could you confirm if this is missed or any other reasons to hold on it?

Thanks,
Leo

Will Deacon July 13, 2020, 10:11 a.m. UTC | #2

Hi Leo,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 02:08:00PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Prompted by Leo's patches, here a series that corrects the arm64 perf cap_user_time situation.
> 
> I checked the latest mainline kernel code base, found this patch set
> are missed to merge into it.
> 
> Could you confirm if this is missed or any other reasons to hold on it?

I was assuming you were going to pick them up, fix up the issues found
by you and kbuild robot and then post a full series after testing.

Will

Leo Yan July 13, 2020, 12:58 p.m. UTC | #3

Hi Will,

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:11:56AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 02:08:00PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Prompted by Leo's patches, here a series that corrects the arm64 perf cap_user_time situation.
> > 
> > I checked the latest mainline kernel code base, found this patch set
> > are missed to merge into it.
> > 
> > Could you confirm if this is missed or any other reasons to hold on it?
> 
> I was assuming you were going to pick them up, fix up the issues found
> by you and kbuild robot and then post a full series after testing.

Understand now, will rebase the patch set and verify it with SPE
timestamp related changes.

Thanks,
Leo