My apologies. Yes, I did make a couple of changes to the patch. I was not sure if I should be sending a v2 since the previous one was a rfc. Please ignore this patch, I will resend this highlighting the new changes made.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > Em Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 09:46:39AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu: >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 07:01:13PM -0700, Arun Kalyanasundaram wrote: >> > The process_event python hook receives a dict with most perf_sample >> > entries. >> >> hi, >> was there any change to the rfc post? > > I was wondering that, please stick a v1, v2, etc to the subject, and > state the changes across versions, to make things clear. > > - Arnaldo > >> thanks, >> jirka >> >> > >> > Other handlers (e.g. trace_unhandled, python_process_tracepoint) predate >> > the introduction of this dict and do not receive it. This patch series >> > adds the dict to all handlers, aiming to unify the information passed to >> > them. >> > >> > This change adds an additional argument to the affected handlers. To >> > keep backwards compatibility (and avoid unnecessary work), do not pass >> > the aforementioned dict if the number of arguments signals that handler >> > version predates this change. >> > >> > In addition, provide time_enabled, time_running and counter value in the >> > perf_sample dict. >> > >> > Initial Discussion: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/1/108 >> > >> > Arun Kalyanasundaram (5): >> > perf script python: Allocate memory only if handler exists >> > perf script python: Refactor creation of perf sample dict >> > perf script python: Add sample_read to dict >> > perf script python: Add perf_sample dict to tracepoint handlers >> > perf script python: Generate hooks with additional argument >> > >> > .../util/scripting-engines/trace-event-python.c | 246 >> > +++++++++++++++------ >> > 1 file changed, 184 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-) >> > >> > -- >> > 2.14.0.rc0.284.gd933b75aa4-goog >> >