Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/48] perf stat: Add aggr creators that are passed a
 cpu.
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
CC:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        "Namhyung Kim" <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@linux.ibm.com>,
        "Paul A . Clarke" <pc@us.ibm.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        "Riccardo Mancini" <rickyman7@gmail.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vineet Singh <vineet.singh@intel.com>,
        "James Clark" <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>, <coresight@lists.linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <zhengjun.xing@intel.com>,
        <eranian@google.com>
References: <20220105061351.120843-1-irogers@google.com>
 <20220105061351.120843-3-irogers@google.com>
 <57ab982e-ecc1-3f49-c580-0a251e29698b@huawei.com>
 <CAP-5=fWT_19OfZTTjvLUcChV4nDwqc5Zq4VE93Gak6OO4NORsA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <b2377d2c-e061-fccd-c31d-589cba3ab1b6@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:51:33 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fWT_19OfZTTjvLUcChV4nDwqc5Zq4VE93Gak6OO4NORsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/01/2022 17:36, Ian Rogers wrote:
> I think you are asking to squash:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220105061351.120843-8-irogers@google.com/
> into this change. 

That's the general idea.

 > 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.
 >

I don't feel so strongly. But I do think that ability to review should 
take preference to providing simple bisections.

Anyway, I'll stop talking and actually have a look.

Cheers,
John