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: <56DEF2C9.7080106@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 21:12:01 +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

Hi Arnaldo,

Gentle reminder :)  Any updates?

Regards,
Ravi

On Thursday 03 March 2016 06:49 AM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Thanks acme,
>
> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 09:52 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:16:48PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
>>> 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) &&
>> Oh, I see, ugh, when running on x86_64 we wouldn't use this, so we need
>> to have per arch default field orders, now I have to recall why is it
>> that we need this per-arch field order :-\
>
> Sorry, I'm little bit confused. We need arch specific functionality 
> present
> on all arch to make cross arch reporting possible.
>
> for example, record perf.data on ppc and report on x86, we need
> ppc specific function present in perf binary compiled on x86.
>
> Please let me know if I understood it wrong.
>
> Regads,
> Ravi
>