From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752060AbbCWD70 (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:59:26 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:60808 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751935AbbCWD7Z (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:59:25 -0400 Message-ID: <550F8F69.2090005@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:58:33 +0800 From: Yunlong Song User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Namhyung Kim CC: , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Remove (null) value of "Sort order" for perf mem report References: <1426773512-27350-1-git-send-email-yunlong.song@huawei.com> <20150323004433.GD2782@sejong> In-Reply-To: <20150323004433.GD2782@sejong> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.111.74.205] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.550F8F8F.0129,ss=1,re=0.001,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: c127c6f51de26cc3d7bdb3404e13cf66 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2015/3/23 8:44, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi Yunlong, > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:58:32PM +0800, Yunlong Song wrote: >> When '--sort' is not set, 'perf mem report" will print a null pointer as >> the output value of sort order, so fix it. >> >> Example: >> >> Before this patch: >> >> $ perf mem report >> # To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only options. >> # >> # Samples: 18 of event 'cpu/mem-loads/pp' >> # Total weight : 188 >> # Sort order : (null) >> # >> ... >> >> After this patch: >> >> $ perf mem report >> # To display the perf.data header info, please use --header/--header-only options. >> # >> # Samples: 18 of event 'cpu/mem-loads/pp' >> # Total weight : 188 >> # >> ... > > I think it'd be better to show default sort order in this case. > > Agree, I have changed that into a default sort order in PATCH v2, thanks. -- Thanks, Yunlong Song