On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<a...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Em Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:35:25AM -0600, David Ahern escreveu:
>> On 3/27/15 11:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >>This is a new feature which means use_clockid on older kernels will fail.
>> >>So
>> >>need to catch that and throw an error -- perhaps yet another probe
>> >>function.
>
>> >How does that work? What do I grep to find an example? I figured if the
>> >kernel didn't support the syscall will fail and we'll terminate
>> >someplace.
>
>> Look at __perf_evsel__open(). In this case you probably do not want
>> to fallback but tell the user the clock id option is not supported.
>> The problem is deciphering the failure is due to the clock id versus
>> all the other failure reasons.
>
> I.e. we're back to the sys_perf_event_open() error reporting suckz rockz
> thing, this time with PeterZ trying to find a way to avoid getting back
> to that discussion... /me runz... ;-P
>
Why not have the kernel advertise the perf capabilities (in procfs or
sysfs) instead this
guessing game with the return values?
--
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/
