> >maybe we dont need to fail in this case.. seems like it should > >not be hard to detect, wanr and recover? ;-) The easiest way is just to bail out and don't try to be smart, that's what I do now.
Another approach would be to just convert all my consistency checks to warnings and skip invalid events (and hope it somehow works). I think it makes sense when for some reason we have perf.data which is not really consistent but we still want to get something out of it. > seems to me it should not be happening at all. It seems like the head caught > the tail and was not properly detected. So you mean it perf record's fault? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
