lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/10] perf tool: Unify handling of features when writing feature section
    Em Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Robert Richter escreveu:
    > On 06.12.11 11:36:30, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
    > > If you fix that please add this warning as well when no build-ids are
    > > found, which hopefully is the odd case these days as all distros I'm
    > > aware of have build-ids in all DSOs.
    >
    > What about the following change in addition? perf record then still
    > stops with an error, but --no-buildid could be used to proceed anyway:
    >
    > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
    > index 766fa0a..80e08ca 100644
    > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
    > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
    > @@ -493,6 +493,13 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct perf_record *rec, int argc, const char **argv)
    > return err;
    > }
    >
    > + if (!no_buildid
    > + && !perf_header__has_feat(&session->header, HEADER_BUILD_ID)) {
    > + pr_err("Couldn't collect buildids. "
    "Your report results may be misleading if profiled "
    "DSOs changed after the record session.\n"
    > + "Use --no-buildid option if you know that "
    "there where no changes in the profiled DSOs.\n");
    > + return -1;
    > + }
    > +
    > rec->post_processing_offset = lseek(output, 0, SEEK_CUR);

    I can do these changes if you agree with this wording,

    - Arnaldo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-07 15:17    [W:0.024 / U:1.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site