Re: [PATCH 18/23] perf tools: Move synthetizing into single function

[Jiri Olsa]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 09:30:50PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 19:49:58 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Moving synthetizing into single function, so it
> 
> s/synthetizing/synthesizing/
> 
> The same goes to the subject line too.

ok


> 
> 
> > could be reused.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/perf/builtin-record.c | 155 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > index b67564c..33a5bce 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > @@ -317,6 +317,95 @@ static void perf_event__synthesize_guest_os(struct machine *machine, void *data)
> >  		       " relocation symbol.\n", machine->pid);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int synthesize_record_pipe(struct perf_record *rec)
> > +{
> > +	struct perf_session  *session = rec->session;
> > +	struct perf_tool        *tool = &rec->tool;
> > +	struct perf_evlist    *evlist = rec->evlist;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = perf_event__synthesize_attrs(tool, session,
> > +					   process_synthesized_event);
> > +	if (err < 0) {
> > +		pr_err("Couldn't synthesize attrs.\n");
> > +		return err;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (have_tracepoints(&evlist->entries)) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * FIXME err <= 0 here actually means that
> > +		 * there were no tracepoints so its not really
> > +		 * an error, just that we don't need to
> > +		 * synthesize anything.  We really have to
> > +		 * return this more properly and also
> > +		 * propagate errors that now are calling die()
> > +		 */
> 
> I believe that this comment is doubly wrong.  First we already check
> whether evlist has tracepoints before calling the below function.
> Secondly I think I got rid of all of the die() calls from the
> tracing_data_get/put path.
> 
> So I would suggest simply removing this comment block.
ook

thanks,
jirka
--
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/