[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin_ShM+OA3QPxJ1Tc-EGf6enHg-d84Cdpg00=Op@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:24:44 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>
Cc: linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...stprotocols.net, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
paulus@...ba.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] perf script: dump software events too
2011/3/1 David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>:
>
>
> On 03/01/2011 08:11 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>> Why shouldn't it be designed to dump software events? It's called print_event().
>> Its current version is rather something I would call "limited". But it
>> was not designed
>> to be limited.
>
> That's because its origins are trace specific. Per last week's thread,
> perf-script was perf-trace until Nov 2010. perf-script deals with
> tracepoints.
Right it has been first created to support tracing events. Now why
should it stay limited to them?
>> Ideally, we should have print_tracepoint_event() in
>> trace-event-parse.c, print_software_event()
>> where you want, and have print_event() in builtin-script.c that wraps on those.
>
>
> process_event does not take the event sample, it takes elements of it:
>
> struct scripting_ops {
> ...
> void (*process_event) (int cpu, void *data, int size,
> unsigned long long nsecs, char *comm);
> ...
> };
What is the problem with changing a function prototype?
--
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