Hi, (Sorry, I missed CC to LKML) I've found a bit odd perf-buildid-cache behavior. It seems to be as designed, but also a bit confusing.
Issue: perf-buildid-cache's --update and --remove operations refer the current existing binary at given path. This means if we update the old binary, it couldn't remove nor update the buildid-cache. Here is the example, ---- [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ ./perf buildid-cache -v --add ./perf Adding 51d0731187917e27fd733f2f6f34777cddbaec0f ./perf: Ok <-- (*) [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ rm perf [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ make clean [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ make [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ ./perf buildid-cache -v --update ./perf Updating 45a97daa65f9c58adeb34af4158a6dde747de49b ./perf: FAIL <-- (*) ./perf wasn't in the cache [mhiramat@localhost perf]$ ./perf buildid-cache -v --remove ./perf Removing 45a97daa65f9c58adeb34af4158a6dde747de49b ./perf: FAIL <-- (*) ./perf wasn't in the cache ---- Both --update and --remove are failed after updating local binary. Note that (*) are verbose message, without -v we don't see that. I know this is the designed behavior, buildid-cache manages binaries based on its build-id, not its path. However, it seems confusing. So, I'd like to suggest to fix --update FILE to add new binary to cache when there is no current binary cache (this will fix the first FAIL), and add --remove-all FILE to remove all existing buildid cache about FILE (path-based cleanup). What would you think about that? Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Research Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- 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/
