On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:09:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> commit 1b3b3dee572d0b77a316ab6715091201be6832de
> Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
> Date: Fri Jan 11 13:20:20 2019 -0300
>
> perf: Make perf_event_output() propagate the output() return
>
> For the
Em Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:52:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:55:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > bpf_perf_event_open() already returns a value, but if
> > perf_event_output's output_begin (mostly perf_output_begin) fails,
> >
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:55:38PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> bpf_perf_event_open() already returns a value, but if
> perf_event_output's output_begin (mostly perf_output_begin) fails,
> the only way to know about that is looking before/after the rb->lost,
>
On 2019-01-11 10:55 a.m., Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Hi Peter,
bpf_perf_event_open() already returns a value, but if
perf_event_output's output_begin (mostly perf_output_begin) fails,
the only way to know about that is looking before/after the rb->lost,
right?
For ring
Hi Peter,
bpf_perf_event_open() already returns a value, but if
perf_event_output's output_begin (mostly perf_output_begin) fails,
the only way to know about that is looking before/after the rb->lost,
right?
For ring buffer users that is ok, we'll get a PERF_RECORD_LOST,
etc, but
5 matches
Mail list logo