[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120322075634.GD31810@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:56:34 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, tool: Add new event group management
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> wrote:
> Em Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:15:10PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > I would much prefer a syntax that's more natural but requires
> > > quoting than one that's quirky and tailor made to avoid
> > > whatever current bash does. For one, there's other shells out
> > > there that might have different quoting needs and bash is of
> > > course free to extend its syntax.
> >
> > Well, they are unlikely to extend to '+', it would break a
> > boatload of scripts I suspect.
> >
> > So the question would be, is a+b+c as event grouping a natural
> > syntax? If not then lets use a quoted one that is.
>
> -e groupname=event1,event2,event3
>
> Seems intuitive, no?
Hm, if there's no use for 'groupname' later on then it's a
needlessly unspecified dimension. If this variant is picked then
I'd suggest to make it a fixed:
-e group=event1,event2,event3
kind of thing instead.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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