Re: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH perf/core v2 00/16] perf-probe --cache and SDT support

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>]

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?

- Arnaldo