I think you're going to have to stop using outlook or whatnot, this is horrible.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 03:00:00AM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:pet...@infradead.org] > > So I don't like this. Why not use the regular PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK > > output to generate the stuff from? We already have two different means, > > with different transport, for callchains anyhow, so a third really won't > > matter. > > I'm not sure what you mean by using the regular > PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK output to generate the stuff from. But we > don't need to modify various architectures' perf_callchain_user, if > that's your concern. An alternative way is to generate the callchain > output in a higher level, like perf_callchain. If there is no frame > pointer, the entry->nr will be set to MAX+1. So the perf_callchain > knows that we need to try LBR callstack if possible. In > perf_callchain, it resets entry->nr to old value, and call > perf_callchain_lbr_callstack to check and fill the callchain struct if > possible. The patch is as below. Please instruct your MUA to wrap at 78 chars. What I meant was: why can't we use the regular PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK output to generate user traces from? PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK is the 'normal' LBR output format. Clobbering the callstack output is bad. > What do you think? I think it still sucks.. you're still clobbering potentially more useful data. -- 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/
