[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51CB20F3.8000805@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:12:19 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/19] perf ftrace: Add support for --pid option
On 6/26/13 1:14 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> @@ -196,6 +222,8 @@ int cmd_ftrace(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix __maybe_unused)
> const struct option ftrace_options[] = {
> OPT_STRING('t', "tracer", &ftrace.tracer, "tracer",
> "tracer to use"),
> + OPT_STRING('p', "pid", &ftrace.target.tid, "pid",
> + "trace on existing process id"),
> OPT_INCR('v', "verbose", &verbose,
> "be more verbose"),
> OPT_END()
You are calling it pid but assigning it as a tid which is inconsistent
with other perf commands. e.g., perf-record allows a list of pids (-p)
or tids (-t). Why not support that in perf-ftrace? And that leads to the
comment about consistency of options across perf commands: -t is used
here for tracer type to use.
David
--
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