[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51CDB3CB.8040304@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:03:23 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fixup for removing -f option in perf record
On 6/28/13 9:37 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/13 3:47 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>>>> I thought -f was the implied default for ages?
>>>>
>>>> OK.. I've been dutifully typing it all this while :-)
>>>
>>> The '-f' option in record command had no affect.. myabe it got
>>> depreceated when we started to backup perf.data to perf.data.old..?
>>
>> Way back in 2010, 2.6.34 kernel - 7865e817 commit. I've been typing
>> the -f for while too. Now about the need for the pesky -f on the
>> analysis side....
>
> That's only needed when perf.data is owned by a different user, right?
>
Yes, why not let file permissions dictate of uid x can read uid y files?
Why does perf need to have that restriction? For example, QA collects
the data files, developers analyze them.
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