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    [W:0.030 / U:30.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site