Re: [PATCH V5 00/25] perf tools: Introduce an abstraction for Instruction Tracing

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:55:37PM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
> On 7/03/2015 11:06 p.m., Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >Here is V5 of some more preparatory patches for Intel PT
> >that introduce an abstraction for Instruction tracing.
> >
> >The Intel PT driver is not yet in tip.
> >
> >Peter, could we please have Alex's 14 patches applied to
> >tip?
> 
> Peter, I know you are really busy, but it would be helpful to know
> what you plan to do?
> 
> >
> >The master branch of the tree:
> >
> >	git://git.infradead.org/users/ahunter/linux-perf.git
> >
> >contains these patches plus Intel PT and BTS and the kernel driver.
> >
> >Arnaldo, I have re-based on tip because of the conflict
> >with your ordered-events changes. I will have a closer look
> >at that next week.
> 
> I took a closer look and resolved the conflict by introducing:
> 
> static int perf_session__deliver_ordered_event(struct ordered_events *oe,
>                                                struct ordered_event *event,
>                                                struct perf_sample *sample)
> {
>         struct perf_session *session =
>                         container_of(oe, struct perf_session, ordered_events);
> 
>         return perf_session__deliver_event(session, event->event, sample,
>                                            oe->tool, event->file_offset);
> }

That would clash again, as in my tree I have it as:

static int perf_session__deliver_event(struct ordered_events *oe,
                                       struct ordered_event *event,
                                       struct perf_sample *sample)
{
        return machines__deliver_event(oe->machines, oe->evlist, event->event,
				       sample, oe->tool, event->file_offset);
}

Which is a misnomer really, as by now it has nothing to do with a
perf_session, its all about ordered_event to a ordered_events.

We'll get that sorted out eventually. Sorry for the flux, but its trying
to get it to a better, more fine grained state.
 
> I will send another revision of the patch set, but I am also
> considered renaming everything from "itrace" to something more
> generic. Possibly "auxtrace" or "hwtrace". Any preferences?

That should match whatever name is used for the kernel facility it will
handle.... both auxtrace and hwtrace looks too ambiguous...

cputrace perhaps?

- 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/