Em Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 12:00:26PM +0000, German Gomez escreveu: > Hi Athira, > > On 02/12/2021 16:03, Athira Rajeev wrote: > > > >> On 01-Dec-2021, at 6:03 PM, German Gomez <german.gomez@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Include a "struct machine*" parameter to the process_event callback in > >> the scripting layer. This will allow access to the perf_env from within > >> this callback. > >> > >> Followup patches will build on top of this to report the correct name of > >> the registers in a perf.data file, consistently with the architecture > >> the file was recorded in. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: German Gomez <german.gomez@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> tools/perf/builtin-script.c | 2 +- > >> .../util/scripting-engines/trace-event-perl.c | 3 ++- > >> .../scripting-engines/trace-event-python.c | 23 +++++++++++-------- > >> tools/perf/util/trace-event-scripting.c | 3 ++- > >> tools/perf/util/trace-event.h | 3 ++- > >> 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c > >> index 9434367af..711132f0b 100644 > >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c > >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c > >> @@ -2256,7 +2256,7 @@ static int process_sample_event(struct perf_tool *tool, > >> thread__resolve(al.thread, &addr_al, sample); > >> addr_al_ptr = &addr_al; > >> } > >> - scripting_ops->process_event(event, sample, evsel, &al, addr_al_ptr); > >> + scripting_ops->process_event(event, sample, evsel, &al, addr_al_ptr, machine); > > Hi, > > > > Looks like the patch is using “machine” to allow access to perf_env__arch and there by to get the “arch” value. > > But can we use from evsel, like "perf_env__arch(evsel__env(evsel))” to get arch value instead of including new parameter for “struct machine” ? > > > > Thanks > > Athira > > Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like we can skip this patch if we > can get the arch value that way. So the first one is already upstream, will you post a v2? - Arnaldo
