From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755063AbbERSnq (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 14:43:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48838 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755032AbbERSno (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2015 14:43:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 20:37:28 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , David Ahern , Adrian Hunter , Andi Kleen , Frederic Weisbecker , Stephane Eranian Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/40] perf tools: Handle indexed data file properly Message-ID: <20150518183728.GA12169@krava> References: <1431909055-21442-1-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> <1431909055-21442-8-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1431909055-21442-8-git-send-email-namhyung@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 09:30:22AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > When perf detects data file has index table, process header part first > and then rest data files in a row. Note that the indexed sample data is > recorded for each cpu/thread separately, it's already ordered with > respect to themselves so no need to use the ordered event queue > interface. > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim > --- > tools/perf/perf.c | 1 + > tools/perf/perf.h | 2 ++ > tools/perf/util/session.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/perf.c b/tools/perf/perf.c > index b857fcbd00cf..960942d9a0b7 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/perf.c > +++ b/tools/perf/perf.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ const char perf_more_info_string[] = > int use_browser = -1; > static int use_pager = -1; > const char *input_name; > +bool perf_has_index; I probably missed some discussion here, but why is this not perf_session function? I saw some non session related functions further in the patchset using this.. is that the reason? it seems fairly perf_session specific.. might be worth to keep it there? just asking ;-) jirka