On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 09:46:47PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 08:46:06AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:04:36PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > I still think that this is a 'perf report' thing, but one that is > > > centered in callchains, and that is to be consumed by scripts, not > > > humans. > > > Agreed. > > > I'm just looking for a way to support it with minimal change. :) > > Hey, me too. A --no-hists flag looks like a quickie, no need to isolate > callchain code, or anything like that, just one long option switch and > we get what we need.
Hmm.. okay. Let me think about the --no-hists flags then. What do you want to do if the --no-hists flags is used without folded callchain mode or other than --stdio? And if you want to print other info in the callchains, what would be the output of non-folded mode? I think the simplest solution would be supporting the folded mode only and error out other cases. Is it ok to you? Thanks, Namhyung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
