On 05.06.2020 18:23, Alexey Budankov wrote: > > On 05.06.2020 17:47, Alexey Budankov wrote: >> >> On 05.06.2020 16:57, Jiri Olsa wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 04:15:52PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05.06.2020 13:51, Jiri Olsa wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:43:58PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>>>> On 2/06/20 12:12 pm, Alexey Budankov wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02.06.2020 11:32, Alexey Budankov wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02.06.2020 2:37, Andi Kleen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> or a pathname, or including also the event default of "disabled". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For my cases conversion of pathnames into open fds belongs to >>>>>>>>>> external >>>>>>>>>> controlling process e.g. like in the examples provided in the patch >>>>>>>>>> set. >>>>>>>>>> Not sure about "event default of 'disabled'" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be nicer for manual use cases if perf supported the path >>>>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>> directly like in Adrian's example, not needing a complex wrapper >>>>>>>>> script. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> fds interface is required for VTune integration since VTune wants >>>>>>>> control >>>>>>>> over files creation aside of Perf tool process. The script demonstrates >>>>>>>> just one possible use case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Control files could easily be implemented on top of fds making open >>>>>>>> operations >>>>>>>> for paths and then initializing fds. Interface below is vague and with >>>>>>>> explicit >>>>>>>> options like below it could be more explicit: >>>>>>>> --ctl-file /tmp/my-perf.fifo --ctl-file-ack /tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or even clearer: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --ctl-fifo /tmp/my-perf --ctl-fifo-ack /tmp/my-perf-ack >>>>>> >>>>>> If people are OK with having so many options, then that is fine by me. >>>>> >>>>> the single option Adrian suggested seems better to me: >>>>> >>>>> --control >>>>> --control 11 >>>>> --control 11,15 >>>> >>>> What if a user specifies fifos named like this above, not fds? >>>> >>>>> --control 11,15,disabled >>>>> --control 11,,disabled >>>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo >>>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo >>>> >>>> What if a user wants not fifos but other type of comm channels? >>>> >>>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo,disabled >>>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,,disabled >>>>> >>>>> we already support this kind of options arguments, like for --call-graph >>>>> >>>>> jirka >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMHO, >>>> this interface, of course, looks more compact (in amount of options) >>>> however >>>> the other side it is less user friendly. One simple option for one simple >>>> purpose is more convenient as for users as for developers. Also complex >>>> option syntax tends to have limitations and there are probably more >>>> non-obvious ones. >>>> >>>> Please speak up. I might have missed something meaningful. >>> >>> how about specify the type like: >>> >>> --control fd:1,2,... >> >> What do these ... mean? > > After all, > if you want it this way and it now also fits my needs I could convert > --ctl-fd[-ack] to --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd> with use cases like > --control fd:<ctl-fd> and --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd>. Accepted?
So, do we implement fds options like this? ~Alexey
