Em Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 09:18:17AM -0500, David Ahern escreveu: > On 12/26/13, 9:15 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >Right, but I can't apply that patch, as it makes 'perf stat > >whatever-workload' to fail, as I realized when doing a demo to someone > >interested in using perf ;-\ > > > >So for now I'm not applying that one. > > right, so you want one with < 0 check or wait for something else? I > was not expecting to find it in your perf/core branch, yet there it > is.
I'll remove it from there, but try it, IIRC there will be some other problem :-\ I'd have to reread the messages I sent, but from what I recall the return from perf_evlist__start_workload() will _always_ be valid, i.e. what you're testing there is just if the parent wrote a byte to a pipe to signal the waiting child to call exec, and that _will_ work, the exec()? perhaps not, you'd have to setup the signal error reporting mechanism, etc. Perhaps this should be somehow done by perf_evlist__start_workload, so that what it reports is the result of the exec in the child, and not merely if it managed to tell it to try to exec... - Arnaldo > > > >Ah, at this point elves are everywhere, dammit! ;-) > > An elf put it there? Right, dwarves may be involved, didn't had the time to figure that out... > David -- 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/
