[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559A9F41.4050705@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:31:13 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf record: Let user have timestamps with per-thread
recording
On 7/6/15 5:51 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> index 6be3c01ff6f8..ec98e5b4e14e 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c
> @@ -707,7 +707,8 @@ void perf_evsel__config(struct perf_evsel *evsel, struct record_opts *opts)
> */
> if (opts->sample_time &&
> (!perf_missing_features.sample_id_all &&
> - (!opts->no_inherit || target__has_cpu(&opts->target) || per_cpu)))
> + (!opts->no_inherit || target__has_cpu(&opts->target) || per_cpu ||
> + opts->sample_time_set)))
> perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, TIME);
>
> if (opts->raw_samples && !evsel->no_aux_samples) {
>
Why is the sample_time_set even needed? If a user or a command asks for
sample time the bit should be set. This seems crazy that underlying code
is ignoring the request.
--
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