Re: [PATCH 08/10] perf tool: Unify handling of features when writing feature section

[Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>]

On 07.12.11 12:14:09, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Robert Richter escreveu:
> > On 06.12.11 11:36:30, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > If you fix that please add this warning as well when no build-ids are
> > > found, which hopefully is the odd case these days as all distros I'm
> > > aware of have build-ids in all DSOs.
> > 
> > What about the following change in addition? perf record then still
> > stops with an error, but --no-buildid could be used to proceed anyway:
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > index 766fa0a..80e08ca 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> > @@ -493,6 +493,13 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct perf_record *rec, int argc, const char **argv)
> >                         return err;
> >         }
> >  
> > +       if (!no_buildid
> > +           && !perf_header__has_feat(&session->header, HEADER_BUILD_ID)) {
> > +               pr_err("Couldn't collect buildids. "
>                          "Your report results may be misleading if profiled "
>                          "DSOs changed after the record session.\n"
> > +                      "Use --no-buildid option if you know that "
>                          "there where no changes in the profiled DSOs.\n");
> > +               return -1;
> > +       }
> > +
> >         rec->post_processing_offset = lseek(output, 0, SEEK_CUR);
> 
> I can do these changes if you agree with this wording,

Yes, I am fine with it.

Thanks,

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center