Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:49:46 -0200 | From | "" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf: make perf.data more self-descriptive (v8) |
| |
Em Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:08:29PM +0100, Robert Richter escreveu: > On 29.11.11 10:35:24, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > sec_start = header->data_offset + header->data_size; > > lseek(fd, sec_start + sec_size, SEEK_SET); > > > > err = do_write_feat(fd, header, HEADER_TRACE_INFO, &p, evlist); > > if (err) > > goto out_free; > > > > err = do_write_feat(fd, header, HEADER_BUILD_ID, &p, evlist); > > if (err) { > > perf_header__clear_feat(header, HEADER_BUILD_ID); > > goto out_free; > > }
> > The 'clear_feat' is missing for TRACE_INFO, that's all. The question is: > > is case do_write_feat(trace_info) fails, is there still a way to parse the file > > correctly? If not, then perf should bail out, if yes, then we need to add the > > clear_feat(TRACE_INFO) in case of error.
> The question is, if do_write_feat() fails for HEADER_TRACE_INFO or > HEADER_BUILD_ID then perf_header__adds_write() fails. A failure of any > other feature simple disables it by calling clear_feat(). I noticed > this asymmetry and wonder why? > > Also, is there a reason why HEADER_TRACE_INFO starts with bit 1 instead > of bit 0. Is bit 0 reserved for some reason?
Frédéric wrote that code, Frédéric?
- Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |