[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131025194643.GE1853@ghostprotocols.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:46:43 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: RFP: Fixing "-ga -ag -g fp -g dwarf" was Re: [PATCHSET 0/8] perf
tools: Fix scalability problem on callchain merging (v5)
Em Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:22:27PM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> On 10/25/13 1:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >>>I think I did with the second follow up patch: -ga -ag -g fp -g
> >>>dwarf should all work properly with fp the default for -g.
> >>Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> >Can I have this one submitted?
> Upon further review, Jiri was correct: that patch handles some of
> the old cases fine, but did not handle others. ie., it just moved
> the bad syntax problem around.
perhaps we can do, at least for now, with what Ingo suggested?
Namely, having:
--call-graph Require an argument, either "dwarf" or "fp"
-g Doesn't require anything, uses whatever is configured,
fp if no explicit config is done in places like
~/.perfconfig
Fits with what most people do usually, no?
- Arnaldo
--
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