Re: [PATCH] perf tests switch-tracking: Fix timestamp comparison

[Namhyung Kim]

Hi Leo,

On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 04:31:58PM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Ian, Namhyung,
> 
> [ - Mailing list ]
> 
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 10:05:16AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 12:54:12PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 2:14 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 01:18:31PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > I'm reminded of a Java check I wrote for this:
> > > >
> > > > Nice short article.
> > > >
> > > > > In clang -Wshorten-64-to-32 looks to cover this. I'll see if we can
> > > > > clean those warnings up a bit.
> > > >
> > > > I checked a bit and seems GCC has no this flag, but it makes sense for
> > > > me to enable the flag for Clang.
> > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot, Ian.
> > > 
> > > I made a small variation to the change in:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250401182347.3422199-10-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > to avoid a subtract and just directly compare the values.
> 
> Do you mind to pick up my this patch? :) Our internal CI reports the
> test case 109_Track_with_sched_switch failure daily, I am just wandering
> if we could apply the fix quickly.

Arnaldo is taking care of patches for v6.15.

Arnaldo, can you please take this?

Thanks,
Namhyung

> 
> Ian is working on a patch series for resolving the Clang warning which
> also includes a fix [1], if Ian could extract the fix for the compar()
> function in switch-tracking.c, this either would be fine for me.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your helping!
> 
> Leo
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20250401182347.3422199-10-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/