[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268957680.9440.430.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:14:40 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com, robert.richter@....com,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix ordering bug in perf_output_sample()
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 22:29 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:42 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> In order to parse a sample correctly based on the information
> >> requested via sample_type, the kernel needs to save each component
> >> in a known order. There is no type value saved with each component.
> >> The current convention is that each component is saved according to
> >> the order in enum perf_event_sample_format. But perf_output_sample()
> >> was not completely following this convention, thereby making samples
> >> impossible to parse without internal kernel knowledge.
> >>
> >> This patch puts things in the right order.
> >
> > NAK, not so actually, its in the order specified in the
> > PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE comment.
> >
> And why is that order different than the one in the enum?
Because I tried to keep the simple elements before the complex ones, but
in any case its too late to change any ordering there now, as its ABI.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists