Re: RFP: Fixing "-ga -ag -g fp -g dwarf" was Re: [PATCHSET 0/8] perftools: Fix scalability problem on callchain merging (v5)

[Jiri Olsa]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 02:03:36PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Em Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 01:22:27PM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
> > > On 10/25/13 1:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > >>>I think I did with the second follow up patch: -ga -ag -g fp -g
> > > >>>dwarf should all work properly with fp the default for -g.
> > 
> > > >>Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > > >Can I have this one submitted?
> >  
> > > Upon further review, Jiri was correct: that patch handles some of
> > > the old cases fine, but did not handle others. ie., it just moved
> > > the bad syntax problem around.
> > 
> > perhaps we can do, at least for now, with what Ingo suggested?
> > 
> > Namely, having:
> > 
> > --call-graph   Require an argument, either "dwarf" or "fp"
> > -g             Doesn't require anything, uses whatever is configured,
> >                fp if no explicit config is done in places like
> >                ~/.perfconfig
> > 
> > Fits with what most people do usually, no?
> 
> Please do this! Usability sucks right now, going from '-g' to
> '-g <foo>' was an incompatible change, a regression I argue,
> which should be fixed in an urgent branch ASAP.

about to finish patches with that, will send it soon

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/