[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200117162807.GL302770@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:28:07 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
anju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
yao.jin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, jmario@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org,
paulus@...abs.org, namhyung@...nel.org, mpetlan@...hat.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/6] perf/tools: Enhance JSON/metric infrastructure to
handle "?"
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 06:16:19PM +0530, Kajol Jain wrote:
> Patch enhances current metric infrastructure to handle "?" in the metric
> expression. The "?" can be use for parameters whose value not known while
> creating metric events and which can be replace later at runtime to
> the proper value. It also add flexibility to create multiple events out
> of single metric event added in json file.
Please add a proper specification how this ? thing is supposed to work,
what the exact semantics are, how it is different from the existing
# mechanism etc.
The standard way to do similar things before was to define an explicit
# name and let the expr code take care of it.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists