Re: [PATCH] perf: make perf.data more self-descriptive (v8)

[acme@xxxxxxxxxx]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/