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;
From:   Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:29:06 +0200
To:     Blake Jones <blakejones@google.com>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Add a "-m" option to "perf buildid-list".
Message-ID: <Yqh/EkVy99Bej46S@krava>
References: <20220607191550.4141024-1-blakejones@google.com>
 <YqZmSRS8UPQJzWFE@krava>
 <CAP_z_CgkJ8RgWevJnDiq-+JjB=ni0OzJ3npwW+S9RZ66i0Y3Kg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAP_z_CgkJ8RgWevJnDiq-+JjB=ni0OzJ3npwW+S9RZ66i0Y3Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 03:02:39PM -0700, Blake Jones wrote:
> 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?

still there's kernel map included, so it's strange to me call it modules

  --m/--kernel-maps ?

> 
> > 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.

we have some helpers for dso fields, but AFAICS long_name and has_build_id
are used directly all over the place

jirka