Em Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 07:46:43PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu: > On 23/07/2014 5:09 p.m., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > >Em Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:07:52AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > >>Em Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 02:43:08PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu: > >>>>>@@ -106,6 +107,8 @@ int comm__override(struct comm *comm, const char > >>>>>*str, u64 timestamp) > >>>>> comm_str__put(old); > >>>>> comm->comm_str = new; > >>>>> comm->start = timestamp; > >>>>>+ if (exec && !comm->exec) > >>>>>+ comm->exec = true;
> >>>>Why do you need the !comm->exec test? > >>>Dunno > >>I saw that you kept it in the last patchkit submitted, I'll just drop > >>it, needless obfuscation. > Sorry I forgot. > >Also why do you need to "identify which comms are from exec", was it > >good for? > It is for grouping together all the data from a single execution, which > is needed for pairing calls and returns e.g. any outstanding calls when > a process exec's will never return. Ok, thanks, I'll add it to the patch log, as I did with some others. I'll continue after lunch, what I have so far is in the tmp.perf/core in my tree, at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
