Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754334Ab3IERiW (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:38:22 -0400 Received: from alerce.vps.bitfolk.com ([85.119.82.134]:56912 "EHLO alerce.vps.bitfolk.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752288Ab3IERiV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2013 13:38:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 18:35:39 +0100 From: Rodrigo Campos To: David Ahern Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, paulus@samba.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@ghostprotocols.net, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Clarify error when running "perf lock record" Message-ID: <20130905173538.GB31659@sdfg.com.ar> References: <1378369936-26473-1-git-send-email-rodrigo@sdfg.com.ar> <52289536.3070504@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52289536.3070504@gmail.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: 2197 Lines: 56 On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:29:10AM -0600, David Ahern wrote: > On 9/5/13 2:32 AM, Rodrigo Campos wrote: > >If you have the config options enabled in your kernel, you still need to be root > >to run perf lock. And is kind of misleading when you have that options enabled > >and the error says that they might not be. > > > >So, this patch just adds to the error that it should be run as root. Although we > >can probably check if it's running as root or not, adding it to the error > >message is really simple and should be enough. > > > >Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Campos > >--- > >Please keep me in Cc: since I'm not subscribed > >--- > > tools/perf/builtin-lock.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c > >index 76543a4..f07b318 100644 > >--- a/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c > >+++ b/tools/perf/builtin-lock.c > >@@ -886,8 +886,8 @@ static int __cmd_record(int argc, const char **argv) > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lock_tracepoints); i++) { > > if (!is_valid_tracepoint(lock_tracepoints[i].name)) { > > pr_err("tracepoint %s is not enabled. " > >- "Are CONFIG_LOCKDEP and CONFIG_LOCK_STAT enabled?\n", > >- lock_tracepoints[i].name); > >+ "Are CONFIG_LOCKDEP and CONFIG_LOCK_STAT enabled " > >+ "and running as root?\n", lock_tracepoints[i].name); > > return 1; > > } > > } > > > > you can run perf-lock as non-root with certain settings. It would be Ohh, I didn't know. Sorry. > better to discriminate debugfs access errors (insufficient > privilege). That means improving is_valid_tracepoint and handling > the errors in perf-lock. IMHO suggesting to check the privileges should be enough for most cases and is simpler that checking all that. I mean, for me it's not worth the effort, but maybe I'm too lazy. Probably it's quite simple too... :-) Thanks, Rodrigo -- 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/