[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140305095155.GA1835@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 10:51:56 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf kvm: introduce --list-cmds for use by scripts
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:26:36PM -0500, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Introduce
>
> $ perf kvm --list-cmds
>
> to dump a raw list of commands for use by the completion script. In
> order to do this, introduce parse_options_subcommand() for handling
> subcommands as a special case in the parse-options machinery.
so this doesn't change the behaviour at all, right?
SNIP
>
> - argc = parse_options(argc, argv, kvm_options, kvm_usage,
> - PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION);
> + argc = parse_options_subcommand(argc, argv, kvm_options, kvm_subcommands, kvm_usage,
> + PARSE_OPT_STOP_AT_NON_OPTION);
> if (!argc)
> usage_with_options(kvm_usage, kvm_options);
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/perf-completion.sh b/tools/perf/perf-completion.sh
> index 496e2ab..ae3a576 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/perf-completion.sh
> +++ b/tools/perf/perf-completion.sh
> @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ __perf_main ()
> __perfcomp_colon "$evts" "$cur"
> # List subcommands for 'perf kvm'
> elif [[ $prev == "kvm" ]]; then
> - subcmds="top record report diff buildid-list stat"
> + subcmds=$($cmd $prev --list-cmds)
Do we want some generic approach here.. if we're
adding generic --list-cmds option anyway.. hm?
SNIP
> -int parse_options(int argc, const char **argv, const struct option *options,
> - const char * const usagestr[], int flags)
> +int parse_options_subcommand(int argc, const char **argv, const struct option *options,
> + const char *const subcommands[], const char *usagestr[], int flags)
> {
> struct parse_opt_ctx_t ctx;
>
> perf_header__set_cmdline(argc, argv);
>
> + /* build usage string if it's not provided */
> + if (subcommands && !usagestr[0]) {
> + struct strbuf buf = STRBUF_INIT;
> +
> + strbuf_addf(&buf, "perf %s [<options>] {", argv[0]);
> + for (int i = 0; subcommands[i]; i++) {
> + if (i)
> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "|");
> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, subcommands[i]);
> + }
> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "}");
> +
> + usagestr[0] = strdup(buf.buf);
> + strbuf_release(&buf);
> + }
is above code ever used now?
jirka
--
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