Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 23:20:26 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
To:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc:     acme@kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, coresight@lists.linaro.org,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: cs-etm: No-op refactor of synth opt usage
Message-ID: <20220211152026.GC475776@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
References: <20220210200620.1227232-1-james.clark@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220210200620.1227232-1-james.clark@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 08:06:19PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
> sample_branches and sample_instructions are already saved in the
> synth_opts struct. Other usages like synth_opts.last_branch don't save
> a value, so make this more consistent by always going through synth_opts
> and not saving duplicate values.
> 
> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>

The patch looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>