Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752511Ab3HZSy5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:54:57 -0400 Received: from mail-gh0-f170.google.com ([209.85.160.170]:32966 "EHLO mail-gh0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752103Ab3HZSy4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:54:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:54:49 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Adrian Hunter Cc: Stephane Eranian , David Ahern , LKML , Frederic Weisbecker , Jiri Olsa , Mike Galbraith , Namhyung Kim , Paul Mackerras , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 12/15] perf tools: allow non-matching sample types Message-ID: <20130826185449.GA8765@ghostprotocols.net> References: <1372319707-13892-1-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <1372319707-13892-13-git-send-email-adrian.hunter@intel.com> <51CC6AAF.4030404@gmail.com> <51D14CB6.206@intel.com> <51D1D043.5030509@gmail.com> <51D27CC6.1050209@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1986 Lines: 44 Em Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 08:44:25AM +0200, Stephane Eranian escreveu: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: > > It would be more compelling to provide a use-case where that "waste" > > actually makes any difference. > In my opinion, it's not so much of the "wasted" space than on the ease of use > for tools. With your change, tools would have to know something about the order > in which sample_type is laid out. And it just happens that it is not > as trivial as > expected. It is NOT the bit position order in sample_type. So this is more error > prone. > I prefer your IDENTIFIER solution better, yet it also implies that this flag is > special. It provides the event ID at the first position in the sample's body. I'm trying to process Adrian's latest batch, but then I saw this discussion and since this compat part is the first patch and is controversial, i.e. Stephane seems to be against it as is David Ahern, I would like to get this compat thing to be moved to the end of the patchset, so that we could get the parts that everybody agrees should go in first and then further discuss the merits of forcing the compatibility up to where we can get the PERF_SAMPLE_ID info. Sorry Adrian, this has been thru a lot of versions :-\ I tried doing it myself, but in the end you would have to take a look to see if I hadn't messed up something, so if you can do a v13 with [PATCH V12 01/13] perf tools: allow non-matching sample types Moved to 13/13, I could then process the other patches and move on, Allowing mixed sample types after this part that must be force made compatible allows us to do things in older kernels that we can't now, so it has merits, BTW. Thanks, - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/