On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:54 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Em Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:49:13AM -0800, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 9:55 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$ perf report -s type
> > > perf: Segmentation fault
> > > -------- backtrace --------
> > > perf[0x69f743]
> > > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x3dbb0)[0x7f89b4778bb0]
> > > perf[0x505af6]
> <SNIP>
> > > perf[0x504f01]
> > > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x27b8a)[0x7f89b4762b8a]
> > > /lib64/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0x8b)[0x7f89b4762c4b]
> > > perf[0x40ed65]
> > > ⬢[acme@toolbox perf-tools-next]$
> >
> > Right, the 'type' sort key was added here but unfortunately
> > it's not ready for prime time yet. It also needs the next patch
> > 19/52 ("perf report: Support data type profiling") to fully enable
> > the feature. Do you think it's better to squash into here?
>
> I haven't checked if squashing would be a good idea, but if you think
> its the right granularity, then do it, as long as we can test features
> in various ways as they are getting added, as I did, using a random
> perf.data file.
I still think it's better to split the change as it's logically separate.
But it's prematurely exposed then maybe needs some protection.
Thanks,
Namhyung
|