On 7/6/15 5:51 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c index 6be3c01ff6f8..ec98e5b4e14e 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/evsel.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/evsel.c @@ -707,7 +707,8 @@ void perf_evsel__config(struct perf_evsel *evsel, struct record_opts *opts) */ if (opts->sample_time && (!perf_missing_features.sample_id_all && - (!opts->no_inherit || target__has_cpu(&opts->target) || per_cpu))) + (!opts->no_inherit || target__has_cpu(&opts->target) || per_cpu || + opts->sample_time_set))) perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(evsel, TIME);if (opts->raw_samples && !evsel->no_aux_samples) {
Why is the sample_time_set even needed? If a user or a command asks for sample time the bit should be set. This seems crazy that underlying code is ignoring the request.
-- 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/
