2011/3/1 David Ahern <daahern@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > On 03/01/2011 08:11 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >> >> Why shouldn't it be designed to dump software events? It's called print_event(). >> Its current version is rather something I would call "limited". But it >> was not designed >> to be limited. > > That's because its origins are trace specific. Per last week's thread, > perf-script was perf-trace until Nov 2010. perf-script deals with > tracepoints. Right it has been first created to support tracing events. Now why should it stay limited to them? >> Ideally, we should have print_tracepoint_event() in >> trace-event-parse.c, print_software_event() >> where you want, and have print_event() in builtin-script.c that wraps on those. > > > process_event does not take the event sample, it takes elements of it: > > struct scripting_ops { > ... > void (*process_event) (int cpu, void *data, int size, > unsigned long long nsecs, char *comm); > ... > }; What is the problem with changing a function prototype? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-perf-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html