Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Thu, 23 Nov 2023 10:40:25 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-trace-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/52] perf report: Add 'type' sort key
Message-ID: <ZV9WSdshxv9MZTb0@kernel.org>
References: <20231110000012.3538610-1-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <20231110000012.3538610-19-namhyung@kernel.org>
 <ZVzvFen/214ylf32@kernel.org>
 <CAM9d7cijprv2fOM_jwYbrV0jbhno2ZQDCT3SExG=Ot=b2mANmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZV5cZe8dxv/GzdGa@kernel.org>
 <CAM9d7ci+rgyGmLmosNpA4Bk1u8sfwYCLVwN4grky5y4g2Weu3g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAM9d7ci+rgyGmLmosNpA4Bk1u8sfwYCLVwN4grky5y4g2Weu3g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Em Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 01:13:04PM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:54 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Em Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:49:13AM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 9:55 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ perf report -s type
> > > > perf: Segmentation fault

> > > Right, the 'type' sort key was added here but unfortunately
> > > it's not ready for prime time yet.  It also needs the next patch
> > > 19/52 ("perf report: Support data type profiling") to fully enable
> > > the feature.  Do you think it's better to squash into here?

> > I haven't checked if squashing would be a good idea, but if you think
> > its the right granularity, then do it, as long as we can test features
> > in various ways as they are getting added, as I did, using a random
> > perf.data file.
 
> I still think it's better to split the change as it's logically separate.

The smaller the patches, the better, I'd say in general.

> But it's prematurely exposed then maybe needs some protection.

Yeah, that is what I felt like it needed, make it more robust by
checking if the used fields were properly initialized, etc.

- Arnaldo