[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8b3ad72c-f28c-8fc0-32b8-4401dbe16358@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 16:19:46 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-trace-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
shuah@...nel.org, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 21/21] perf-probe: Add array argument support
Hi Masami :)
On 03/22/2018 03:53 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:29:59 +0530
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is it okay to allow user to specify array size with type field?
> Fro this patch, yes.
So IIUC, perf _tool_ will allow user to record array either with "name[range]"
or by "name:type[length]". Please correct me if that's wrong.
And If perf tool will allow array length along with TYPE field, I guess we should
document that in man perf-probe?
Otherwise,
Acked-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Thanks,
Ravi
> The availability of type is checked only when
> it is automatically generated.
> IMO, it should be done in another patch, something like
> "Validate user specified type casting" patch. Would you need it?
>
> Thank you,
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists