Em Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:58:38PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 01:40:01PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:22:28PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 01:10:04PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Ok, so the user asks for --no-samples but at the same time asks for > > > > precision equal to :ppp, we should stop right there and warn the user > > > > that that is not possible, instead of silently dropping off what the > > > > user explicitely asked.
> > > well I take this option more like debug/devel one.. you have > > > failing command line and want to investigate the kernel state > > > without having samples generated under your fingers > > > can't see why would normal user need it > > > > I'm cooking a few patches to allow that, then we can apply your patch, > > > > that, with the current set of users will never kick in :-) > > Take a look at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=9f6e7e8bbb99feb6d721be7ccefb8c9139fa5abb > > and: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/commit/?h=perf/core&id=f9a4297945a99b47f92b111b5b1802a3b295a1a7 > > Its in my perf/core branch now. > I think I'd just go for simple warning once we detect -n and :p > but if you think error is necessary I'll live ;-) Ok, so you don't find any error in my patches, good :-) I don't like options that are developer-only-that-knows-what-is-doing, nor things that get chopped up behind your feet, so I think the way I did covers your case and provides meaningful error messages when an invalid combination of options is used. - Arnaldo
