Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf: Support perf -vv

["Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>]

On 3/28/2018 9:22 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:57:08PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>> We keep having bug reports that when users build perf on their own,
>> but they don't install some needed libraries such as libelf,
>> libbfd/libibery.
>>
>> The perf can build, but it is missing important functionality.
>>
>> This patch provides a new option '-vv' which will print the
>> compiled-in status of libraries.
>>
>> The 'perf -vv' is equal to 'perf -version --build-options'.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> $ ./perf -vv or ./perf -version --build-options
>> perf version 4.13.rc5.gcb1183
>>                   dwarf: [ on  ]
>>      dwarf_getlocations: [ on  ]
>>                   glibc: [ on  ]
>>                    gtk2: [ on  ]
>>                libaudit: [ OFF ]
>>                  libbfd: [ on  ]
>>                  libelf: [ on  ]
>>                 libnuma: [ on  ]
>> numa_num_possible_cpus: [ on  ]
>>                 libperl: [ on  ]
>>               libpython: [ on  ]
>>                libslang: [ on  ]
>>               libcrypto: [ on  ]
>>               libunwind: [ on  ]
>>      libdw-dwarf-unwind: [ on  ]
>>                    zlib: [ on  ]
>>                    lzma: [ on  ]
>>               get_cpuid: [ on  ]
>>                     bpf: [ on  ]
>> [ on  ]: library is compiled-in
>> [ OFF ]: library is disabled in make configuration
>>           OR library is not installed in build environment
>>
>> v2:
>> ---
>> Use a global variable version_verbose to count the number of 'v'.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jin Yao <yao.jin@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/perf.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
>>   tools/perf/perf.h |  1 +
>>   2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/perf.c b/tools/perf/perf.c
>> index 1b3fc8e..355219e 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/perf.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/perf.c
>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>   
>>   const char perf_usage_string[] =
>> -	"perf [--version] [--help] [OPTIONS] COMMAND [ARGS]";
>> +	"perf [--version [--build-options]] [--help] [OPTIONS] COMMAND [ARGS]";
> 
> --build-options is 'perf version' option no?
> 
> jirka
> 

Yes. Command-line something like:

perf --version --build-options or perf -v --build-options.

Is this usage string not correct? If so, I'd like to fix that.

"perf [--version [--build-options]] [--help] [OPTIONS] COMMAND [ARGS]";

Thanks
Jin Yao