[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871umd2fno.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:00:43 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf tools: Split out util/symbol-elf.c
Hi, Jiri
On Mon, 21 May 2012 13:45:31 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> hi,
> this one needs rebase to current code, I got some conflicts
>
Will do.
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 04:10:22PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Factor out the dependency of ELF handling into separate
>> symbol-elf.c file. It is a preparation of building a
>> minimalistic version perf tools which doesn't depend on
>> the elfutils.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
>> ---
>> tools/perf/Makefile | 1 +
>> tools/perf/util/symbol-elf.c | 691 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/perf/util/symbol.c | 704 +-----------------------------------------
>> tools/perf/util/symbol.h | 15 +
>> 4 files changed, 715 insertions(+), 696 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 tools/perf/util/symbol-elf.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile b/tools/perf/Makefile
>> index e98e14c88532..7198c6cbc006 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile
>> @@ -334,6 +334,7 @@ LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)util/usage.o
>> LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)util/wrapper.o
>> LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)util/sigchain.o
>> LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)util/symbol.o
>> +LIB_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)util/symbol-elf.o
>
> I think I'd like more generic elf interface compiled with either libelf
> or our stuff.. also separated from "other perf related" symbol handling
>
> looks like we need to be able to parse out build ID and symbols from
> symtab or dyntab:
>
> perf_elf__get_buildid(file, buf, len)
>
> perf_elf__get_symbols(file, ..., callback, )
> - calling callback func for each symbol found,
> the call would then do the perf symbol related stuff
>
> I understand that means much more changes.. so probably what you have now
> is a good start and we can do that later.. just with above goal in mind
>
So you mean we need to have our own libelf or such? I'm not sure it's
the way to go. I just wanted to have a working 'perf record' on my board
:). But I'd like to hear how others think.
Thanks for the comment,
Namhyung
--
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