Re: [RFC PATCH v1] perf record: Correct address filters for duplicated symbols

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

Em Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:48:48AM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov escreveu:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:02:02AM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > On 6/01/23 22:37, Dmitrii Dolgov wrote:
> > > It seems the logic to handle duplicated symbols is off. In case if the
> > > symbol index is specified it will:
> > >
> > > * find a match
> > > * continue searching
> > > * check that start is not null and idx is set on the next loop
> > > * exit with the error code 1
> > >
> > > My guess is the expectation was that at this point the second match is
> > > found (because *start is not null), although the new symbol hasn't pass
> > > dso_sym_match yet. Here is how it looks like:
> >
> > If *start && idx > 0 there is no need to match anymore.  The
> > code is just getting *size.  Looks to me like it should be:
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/auxtrace.c b/tools/perf/util/auxtrace.c
> > index 265d20cc126b..c2e323cd7d49 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/auxtrace.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/auxtrace.c
> > @@ -2611,7 +2611,7 @@ static int find_dso_sym(struct dso *dso, const char *sym_name, u64 *start,
> >  				*size = sym->start - *start;
> >  			if (idx > 0) {
> >  				if (*size)
> > -					return 1;
> > +					return 0;
> >  			} else if (dso_sym_match(sym, sym_name, &cnt, idx)) {
> >  				print_duplicate_syms(dso, sym_name);
> >  				return -EINVAL;
> 
> Yes, if there was no intention to continue searching symbols, this would
> work as well. Just in case I have verified this on my test, everything
> is fine. Would you send a patch for that?

So I'll take this as a:

Tested-by: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>

Ok?

- Arnaldo