Re: [RFC 4/4] perf kvm: Fix output fields instead of 'trace' for perf kvm report on powerpc

[Ravi Bangoria]

Hi Arnaldo,

Gentle reminder :)  Any updates?

Regards,
Ravi

On Thursday 03 March 2016 06:49 AM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Thanks acme,
>
> On Wednesday 02 March 2016 09:52 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 09:16:48PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > > Thanks Arnaldo,
> > >
> > > Please find my comments.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 02 March 2016 07:55 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 02:37:45PM +0530, Ravi Bangoria escreveu:
> > > > >           use_browser = 0;
> > > > > +    if (!field_order &&
> > > > > +        is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) &&
> > > > > +        perf_guest_only())
> > > > > +        field_order = "overhead,comm,dso,sym";
> > > > > +
> > > > Can you please do it as:
> > > >
> > > > __weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, 
> > > > const char **field_order)
> > > > {
> > > > }
> > > So you mean like this - Just implement only weak function and move 
> > > code into
> > > it?
> > > ie. No strong implementation at this point of time.
> > >
> > > Like,
> > >
> > > __weak void arch__override_field_order(struct perf_evlist *evlist, 
> > > const
> > > char **f_order)
> > > {
> > >      if (!field_order &&
> > >          is_perf_data_reorded_on_ppc(session->evlist) &&
> > Oh, I see, ugh, when running on x86_64 we wouldn't use this, so we need
> > to have per arch default field orders, now I have to recall why is it
> > that we need this per-arch field order :-\
>
> Sorry, I'm little bit confused. We need arch specific functionality 
> present
> on all arch to make cross arch reporting possible.
>
> for example, record perf.data on ppc and report on x86, we need
> ppc specific function present in perf binary compiled on x86.
>
> Please let me know if I understood it wrong.
>
> Regads,
> Ravi