Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:22:20 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 4/4] perf kvm: Fix output fields instead of 'trace' for perf kvm report on powerpc |
| |
Em Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:16:48PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > Thanks Arnaldo, > > Please find my comments. > > On Wednesday 02 March 2016 07:55 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >Em Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:37:45PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu: > >> use_browser = 0; > >>+ if (!field_order && > >>+ is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) && > >>+ perf_guest_only()) > >>+ field_order = "overhead,comm,dso,sym"; > >>+ > >Can you please do it as: > > > >__weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, const char **field_order) > >{ > >} > > So you mean like this - Just implement only weak function and move code into > it? > ie. No strong implementation at this point of time. > > Like, > > __weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, const > char **f_order) > { > if (!field_order && > is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) &&
Oh, I see, ugh, when running on x86_64 we wouldn't use this, so we need to have per arch default field orders, now I have to recall why is it that we need this per-arch field order :-\
- Arnaldo
> perf_guest_only()) > *field_order = "overhead,comm,dso,sym"; > } > > Then I can do that. > > But if you are proposing to implement a strong function and move this code > into in, then we won't be able to enable cross arch reporting. > > > > >This way we don't see any arch specific stuff in the tool, also I > >haven't seen any doc update, are you sure nothing needs to be added to > >tools/perf/Documentaton/ for any of these patches? > > > >I think this needs to be documented further, probably in > >tools/perf/design.txt too? > > Yes, I'll do this in next version. > > Regards, > Ravi
| |