linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/4] perf kvm: Fix output fields instead of 'trace' for perf kvm report on powerpc

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]

Message-ID: <56D70AE8.1080501@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 21:16:48 +0530
From:	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hemant@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] perf kvm: Fix output fields instead of 'trace' for perf
 kvm report on powerpc

Thanks Arnaldo,

Please find my comments.

On Wednesday 02 March 2016 07:55 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:37:45PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>   		use_browser = 0;
>>   
>> +	if (!field_order &&
>> +	    is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) &&
>> +	    perf_guest_only())
>> +		field_order = "overhead,comm,dso,sym";
>> +
> Can you please do it as:
>
> __weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, const char **field_order)
> {
> }

So you mean like this - Just implement only weak function and move code 
into it?
ie. No strong implementation at this point of time.

Like,

__weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, const 
char **f_order)
{
     if (!field_order &&
         is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) &&
         perf_guest_only())
             *field_order = "overhead,comm,dso,sym";
}

Then I can do that.

But if you are proposing to implement a strong function and move this code
into in, then we won't be able to enable cross arch reporting.

>
> This way we don't see any arch specific stuff in the tool, also I
> haven't seen any doc update, are you sure nothing needs to be added to
> tools/perf/Documentaton/ for any of these patches?
>
> I think this needs to be documented further, probably in
> tools/perf/design.txt too?

Yes, I'll do this in next version.

Regards,
Ravi