lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] perf-record: no build id option fails
Em Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:06:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
>
> * David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > @@ -504,9 +504,9 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct perf_record *rec, int argc, const char **argv)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!!rec->no_buildid
> > + if (!rec->no_buildid
> > && !perf_header__has_feat(&session->header, HEADER_BUILD_ID)) {
> > - pr_err("Couldn't generating buildids. "
> > + pr_err("Couldn't generate buildids. "
> > "Use --no-buildid to profile anyway.\n");
>
> After this fix it might make sense to do a s/no_buildid/build_id
> across the source and negate all the conditions. Generally it's
> cleaner to have no negation in structure field names, it avoids
> such double and triple negation problems.
>
> The feature bit did it correctly: it has HEADER_BUILD_ID which
> signals the presence of build-ids.
>
> ( Btw., in error messages it might make sense to do a
> subsystem-wide s/buildid/build-id rename as well, to make it
> all easier to read - when I read 'buildid' I often keep
> wondering who that Buil guy is and what he did. )

Yeah, making it consistently build_id (and build-id in command line
options) is better than disturbing Buil, as he did nothing to deserve
that level of disturbance from these pesky linux guys ;-)

- Arnaldo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-07 15:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site