linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/40] perf tools: Handle indexed data file properly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 20:37:28 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/40] perf tools: Handle indexed data file properly

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:30:22AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> When perf detects data file has index table, process header part first
> and then rest data files in a row.  Note that the indexed sample data is
> recorded for each cpu/thread separately, it's already ordered with
> respect to themselves so no need to use the ordered event queue
> interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
> ---
>  tools/perf/perf.c         |  1 +
>  tools/perf/perf.h         |  2 ++
>  tools/perf/util/session.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/perf.c b/tools/perf/perf.c
> index b857fcbd00cf..960942d9a0b7 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/perf.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/perf.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ const char perf_more_info_string[] =
>  int use_browser = -1;
>  static int use_pager = -1;
>  const char *input_name;
> +bool perf_has_index;

I probably missed some discussion here, but why is this not
perf_session function? I saw some non session related functions
further in the patchset using this.. is that the reason?

it seems fairly perf_session specific.. might be worth to
keep it there? just asking ;-)

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/