From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934023AbeCGREi (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:04:38 -0500 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:18004 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933487AbeCGRE1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:04:27 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,436,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="23286036" Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 09:04:11 -0800 From: Andi Kleen To: Ilya Pronin Cc: Cong Wang , LKML , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf stat: fix cvs output format Message-ID: <20180307170411.GI25017@tassilo.jf.intel.com> References: <20180306064353.31930-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <20180306170011.GD25017@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20180306175320.GE25017@tassilo.jf.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:31:03PM -0800, Ilya Pronin wrote: > Speaking from the user's seat. An optional (not just empty) cgroup > field is fine as long it consistently appears when requested with -G > option. The problem with print_metric_csv() was that in the case of > unsupported counters 2 additional empty fields in the output are > completely unexpected and not documented anywhere. > > Andi, in the output example in your commit > 92a61f6412d3a09d6462252a522fa79c9290f405 stalled-cycles-backend event > has counter run time field, counter run time percentage field, empty > metric value, empty metric unit, and then 2 other empty fields. Are > they expected? If yes, what are they and why other events, e.g. No two extra empty fields are not expected. All lines should have the same number of fields so that a tool that looks at the first like can keep using the same number. But I don't think that was it what the patch fixed, or did I misread it? -Andi