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:0.491 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site