[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101213131557.GD5407@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:15:57 -0200
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf tools: Add reference timestamp to perf header
Em Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 09:16:16PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker escreveu:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 06:54:44PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c
> > @@ -191,6 +191,40 @@ static int write_padded(int fd, const void *bf, size_t count,
> > +static int perf_header__read_ref_time(struct perf_header *header,
> > + int fd, u64 offset, u64 size)
> > +{
> > + size_t sz_nsec = sizeof(header->nsec_ref);
> > + size_t sz_tv = sizeof(header->tv_ref);
> > + int err = -1;
> > +
> > + if (((size - offset) < (sz_nsec + sz_tv)) ||
> > + (read(fd, &header->nsec_ref, sz_nsec) != (ssize_t) sz_nsec) ||
> > + (read(fd, &header->tv_ref, sz_tv) != (ssize_t) sz_tv))
> > + goto out;
>
> Hmm, could we have endianness related troubles if we write the timespec on
> an arch and cross read from another, or other cross read issues?
Well spotted, it needs to use perf_header__getbuffer64 and make sure
that nsec_ref, etc are u64 fields.
- Arnaldo
--
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