Hi Adrian,
I have just resubmitted these changes as a new patch set, which I believe
should address most of your concerns. Please review the new patch set
instead of continuing with this one.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/28/75
Thanks,
Chris
On 04/22/2016 09:41 PM, Chris Phlipot wrote:
On 04/22/2016 12:56 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
The call_paths table already has symbol_id which belongs uniquely to
a DSO,
so why do we need dso_id as well?
If the symbol_id is 0 because the IP could not be resolved to a
symbol, this is not necessarily a valid assumption. Without a dso_id
in the call_paths table, it is not possible to resolve the dso when
symbol information is missing. the db_export api currently does not
have enough information to match a DSO with an IP.
It is often useful to still have the call path associated with a DSO
even if there is no symbol, which i why i recommend keeping the dso_id
in the call_paths table.
Why do you need a callback? Seems like the only thing you need from
thread-stack.c is the call path tree. You could move that to its own
.c/.h
files and then process the call chain in db-export.c
My original intent was to reuse existing code with minimal changes and
conform the existing design patterns they used. Thread-stack.c, for
example, currently uses a callback to populate the call_return table,
so I used a callback as well to populate the call_path table.
I am open to making this change if it is believed it will result in a
cleaner implementation.
Also a list of changes like the one above heavily implies you are not
obeying the one patch == one change rule. Please try to make patches
that
only do one thing and also run checkpatch.
While i can split this into a few smaller patches there is only really
justification for applying all of them all together. If this is still
preferred i can resubmit this in smaller parts.
If you don't mind, I'll let you respond to my comments before I
comment on
any other patches.
Let me know if you have any additional comments.
Thanks,
Chris
