Em Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:52:37PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > If we agreed to extend the event format, I'd like to keep it simple
> > > and to make it optional to add more info (separated by colon?).
> >
> > Reading this again after writing what is below: my suggestion is to use
> > @, see rationale below.
>
> I'm fine with using @.
> > I would show what desambiguates them in non verbose mode, i.e., the
> > above would be:
> >
> > $ perf list sdt_foo:bar
> >
> > sdt_foo:bar:dir1/libfoo1.so [User SDT event]
> > sdt_foo:bar:dir2/libfoo1.so [User SDT event]
> > sdt_foo:bar:libfoo2.so [User SDT event]
>
> Then it should use @ here too.
Right.
<SNIP>
> > That would be something like this:
> > perf record -e sdt_foo:bar@0x1234
> > Because in this case the 'at' meaning of '@' makes sense, i.e.
> > use the std_foo:bar event at the DSO with a 0x1234 buildid?
>
> IMHO @ looks perfect for pathnames but I don't know about build-id as
> it can be thought as some address. Anyway I still think @ is a good
> choice though. ;-)
Yeah, perhaps we need further clarification? I.e. something like:
sdt_foo:bar:libfoo1.so@buildid(0x1234)
Or something else, perhaps shorter, that clarifies that it is a buildid?
- Arnaldo
--
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/
