Em Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:23:46AM -0700, Mathieu Poirier escreveu: > On 18 December 2017 at 07:25, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hun...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 18/12/17 15:28, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 05:03:53AM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>> The following patch: > >>> > >>> f785657b0fbe perf report: Fix regression when decoding Intel-PT traces > >> > >> Cc'ing Adrian in case he missed the patch. > > > > Doesn't seem to have much to do with Intel PT, but the patch logic looks > > wrong: > > > > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, > > ×tamp); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret != -1) > > return ret; > > > > Shouldn't that be: > > > > ret = perf_evlist__parse_sample_timestamp(evlist, event, > > ×tamp); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret && ret != -1) > > return ret; > > Of course! > > Ingo, how do you want to proceed? Should I send a V3?
Probably, I've run into this as well, as has Ingo, after I reverted it, things got back working. Back to vacations... :-) - Arnaldo > >>> is breaking perf report for me. I get no samples reported from perf report > >>> when running simple perf record commands: > >>> > >>> $ perf record -e cycles noploop > >>> > >>> Reverting the patch fixes the problem. > >>> > >>> Are you seeing this as well? > >> > >
