On 2015/07/28 0:16, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:03:20PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:52:37PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>>> If we agreed to extend the event format, I'd like to keep it simple >>>> and to make it optional to add more info (separated by colon?). >>> >>> Reading this again after writing what is below: my suggestion is to use >>> @, see rationale below. >> >> I'm fine with using @. > >>> I would show what desambiguates them in non verbose mode, i.e., the >>> above would be: >>> >>> $ perf list sdt_foo:bar >>> >>> sdt_foo:bar:dir1/libfoo1.so [User SDT event] >>> sdt_foo:bar:dir2/libfoo1.so [User SDT event] >>> sdt_foo:bar:libfoo2.so [User SDT event] >> >> Then it should use @ here too. > > Right. > > <SNIP> > >>> That would be something like this: > >>> perf record -e sdt_foo:bar@0x1234 > >>> Because in this case the 'at' meaning of '@' makes sense, i.e. >>> use the std_foo:bar event at the DSO with a 0x1234 buildid? >> >> IMHO @ looks perfect for pathnames but I don't know about build-id as >> it can be thought as some address. Anyway I still think @ is a good >> choice though. ;-) > > Yeah, perhaps we need further clarification? I.e. something like: > > sdt_foo:bar:libfoo1.so@buildid(0x1234) > > Or something else, perhaps shorter, that clarifies that it is a buildid?
Hmm, Do we really need such additional buildid? Even though, I think the build id should have different delimiter, like '%', as below. sdt_foo:b...@libfoo1.so%buildid Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU Linux Technology Research Center, System Productivity Research Dept. Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering Hitachi, Ltd., Research & Development Group E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- 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/
