Re: [PATCH v5 13/13] perf record: introduce --ctl-fd[-ack] options

Jiri Olsa
2020-06-08T08:46:03Z

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:23:17PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:

SNIP

> >>>>>> Or even clearer:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --ctl-fifo /tmp/my-perf --ctl-fifo-ack /tmp/my-perf-ack
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If people are OK with having so many options, then that is fine by me.
> >>>>
> >>>> the single option Adrian suggested seems better to me:
> >>>>
> >>>> --control
> >>>> --control 11
> >>>> --control 11,15
> >>>
> >>> What if a user specifies fifos named like this above, not fds?
> >>>
> >>>> --control 11,15,disabled
> >>>> --control 11,,disabled
> >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo
> >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo
> >>>
> >>> What if a user wants not fifos but other type of comm channels?
> >>>
> >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,/tmp/my-perf-ack.fifo,disabled
> >>>> --control /tmp/my-perf.fifo,,disabled
> >>>>
> >>>> we already support this kind of options arguments, like for --call-graph
> >>>>
> >>>> jirka
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> IMHO,
> >>> this interface, of course, looks more compact (in amount of options) however
> >>> the other side it is less user friendly. One simple option for one simple
> >>> purpose is more convenient as for users as for developers. Also complex
> >>> option syntax tends to have limitations and there are probably more
> >>> non-obvious ones.
> >>>
> >>> Please speak up. I might have missed something meaningful.
> >>
> >> how about specify the type like:
> >>
> >> --control fd:1,2,...
> >
> > What do these ... mean?
>
> After all,
> if you want it this way and it now also fits my needs I could convert
> --ctl-fd[-ack] to --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd> with use cases like
> --control fd:<ctl-fd> and --control fd:<ctl-fd>,<ack-fd>. Accepted?

looks good

jirka