On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:50:29PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 03:31:45PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > static int intel_pt_recording_options(struct auxtrace_record *itr, > > > > > struct perf_evlist *evlist, > > > > > struct record_opts *opts) @@ > > > > > -701,6 > > +717,8 @@ static > > > > > int intel_pt_recording_options(struct > > > > auxtrace_record *itr, > > > > > perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(switch_evsel, > > > > TIME); > > > > > perf_evsel__set_sample_bit(switch_evsel, > > > > CPU); > > > > > > > > > > + add_no_lbr_config_term(&switch_evsel- > > > > >config_terms); > > > > > + > > > > > > > > hum, why can't you change the sample bit directly? with: > > > > > > > > perf_evsel__reset_sample_bit(switch_evsel, > > > > BRANCH_STACK); > > > > > > It will be overwrite in perf_evsel__config. > > > > > > > where? you set the evsel->no_aux_samples > > Yes for switch_evsel, but no for tracking_evsel. > > If it's only for switch_evsel, yes, we can change the sample bit directly. > But I think we should use the same method for both of them.
we could set the no_aux_samples for the tracking_evsel as well jirka
