Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220607191550.4141024-1-blakejones@google.com> <YqZmSRS8UPQJzWFE@krava>
In-Reply-To: <YqZmSRS8UPQJzWFE@krava>
From:   Blake Jones <blakejones@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:02:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP_z_CgkJ8RgWevJnDiq-+JjB=ni0OzJ3npwW+S9RZ66i0Y3Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Add a "-m" option to "perf buildid-list".
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for taking a look at this!

On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 3:18 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> why 'modules' ? it shows all maps (including kernel)
> so perhaps -m/--maps would be better?

 I called it "modules" because it only operates on the kernel. Calling it
"maps" would suggest to me that it might also be able to show
information about the maps in perf.data files, which it can't (just as the
"-k" option only operates on the kernel). Given that, does it still seem
like "maps" would be more appropriate?

> also please state that it's from running kernel

Happy to make this change.

> any reason why not use the dso fields directly?

I was just following my general software engineering instincts to
encapsulate implementation details, so that e.g. the caller doesn't need to
know about details such as the "has_build_id" boolean. I haven't made
changes to perf before, so if that's not the preferred style, I can do it
a different way.

Blake