Closed joelagnel closed 7 years ago
If we add a specific parser class for tracing_mark_write
, does that break
I don't grok the existing parsing code but this seems good to my slightly inexpert eyes. My only concern (aside from the little comments on the tracer
attribute) is this: If we add a parser class for "tracing_mark_write" do we break injecting custom events from userspace (i.e. not systrace)? For example in LISA we use devlib to inject "cpu_frequency_devlib" events, which are really "tracing_mark_write" events containing the string "cpu_frequency_devlib:". We pass "cpu_frequency_devlib" in the events
parameter to FTrace
which results in a dynamic parser class being created with that as its unique word. Would that be broken if there was already a parser class with "tracing_mark_write" as its unique word?
Brendan you closed this PR, hope that wasn't intentional? ;)
You are right this will break that. It could be easily fixed though by making sure tracing mark write class is used only when nothing else matched. I will work on fixing that. I will also add better commit message for explaining the parsing.
Brendan you closed this PR, hope that wasn't intentional? ;)
Yep, accident, sorry!
Okay. I am merging this one. Thanks everyone!
Merged right?
Hi @derkling , I went ahead and re-wrote #243. This is very fresh so I am just posting it early for any comments. This approach is more cleaner and also doesn't have issues with #243. It also doesn't require dropping custom strings written by tracing_mark_write that systrace doesn't recognize . I didn't add your test case but I ran some scripts to see it working and existing nosetests are passing. I would appreciate if you can integrate your test case from #243 to work with this PR and feel free to repost this PR with that. We can also close that old PR and work with this one. I borrowed your regex from the systrace format patch and given you credit in the relevant patch, thanks. CC @bjackman