From: Vitali L. <vit...@pa...> - 2009-12-07 20:08:12
|
Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. Thanks. diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 --- a/utils/opcontrol +++ b/utils/opcontrol @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() fi fi fi - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then |
From: Joshua E. <je...@gm...> - 2011-03-09 17:12:02
Attachments:
busybox-compat.patch
|
Hello, There was a brief discussion in December 2009 ( http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac...> |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2011-03-11 16:19:49
|
On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: > Hello, > > There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. > > Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? The replacement of 'wc -m` by `wc -c` seems reasonable. -Will |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2011-03-11 17:42:40
Attachments:
op-busybox.patch
|
William Cohen wrote: > On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: >> Hello, >> >> There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. >> >> Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> > > Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? Yes, definitely. See updated patch attached below, which I've tested. I'll commit this patch. > > The replacement of 'wc -m` by `wc -c` seems reasonable. > > -Will > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > oprofile-list mailing list > opr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list |
From: William C. <wc...@re...> - 2011-03-11 18:11:36
Attachments:
op-busy3.patch
|
On 03/11/2011 12:42 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: > William Cohen wrote: >> On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. >>> >>> Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> >> >> Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? > Yes, definitely. See updated patch attached below, which I've tested. I'll commit this patch. Is the patch's case correct? Original code did the following return 0 for ppc64/*cell* return 1 for ppc64/* (every ppc64 not cell) return 0 for everything other than ppc64 Shouldn't the case statement be like the attached? -Will |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2011-03-11 18:31:22
|
William Cohen wrote: > On 03/11/2011 12:42 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: >> William Cohen wrote: >>> On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. >>>> >>>> Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> >>> >>> Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? >> Yes, definitely. See updated patch attached below, which I've tested. I'll commit this patch. > > Is the patch's case correct? Original code did the following > > return 0 for ppc64/*cell* > return 1 for ppc64/* (every ppc64 not cell) > return 0 for everything other than ppc64 Whoops! You're absolutely right. Good catch. Joshua, can you please test Will's patch. I'll test it on Power AND on Intel (which I neglected to do the first go-round). -Maynard > > Shouldn't the case statement be like the attached? > > -Will > > diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol > index 8c64af9..3a8a814 100644 > --- a/utils/opcontrol > +++ b/utils/opcontrol > @@ -1149,18 +1149,15 @@ set_ctr_param() > is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() > { > case "$1" in > - ppc64/*) > - tmp="${1/cell/CELL}" > - if test "$1" = "$tmp"; then > - #No substituion occurred, so cputype is not cell > - return 1 > - else > - return 0 > - fi > - ;; > - *) > - return 0; > - ;; > + ppc64/*cell*) > + return 0 > + ;; > + ppc64/*) > + return 1 > + ;; > + *) > + return 0 > + ;; > esac > } > > @@ -1278,7 +1275,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() > fi > fi > fi > - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` > + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` > num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` > GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` > if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then |
From: Joshua E. <je...@gm...> - 2011-03-12 00:04:05
|
Will's patch works perfectly on the box I'm on. Thank you for simplifying the case statement. Joshua On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Maynard Johnson <may...@us...> wrote: > William Cohen wrote: >> On 03/11/2011 12:42 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: >>> William Cohen wrote: >>>> On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. >>>>> >>>>> Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> >>>> >>>> Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? >>> Yes, definitely. See updated patch attached below, which I've tested. I'll commit this patch. >> >> Is the patch's case correct? Original code did the following >> >> return 0 for ppc64/*cell* >> return 1 for ppc64/* (every ppc64 not cell) >> return 0 for everything other than ppc64 > Whoops! You're absolutely right. Good catch. Joshua, can you please test Will's patch. I'll test it on Power AND on Intel (which I neglected to do the first go-round). > > -Maynard >> >> Shouldn't the case statement be like the attached? >> >> -Will >> >> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >> index 8c64af9..3a8a814 100644 >> --- a/utils/opcontrol >> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >> @@ -1149,18 +1149,15 @@ set_ctr_param() >> is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() >> { >> case "$1" in >> - ppc64/*) >> - tmp="${1/cell/CELL}" >> - if test "$1" = "$tmp"; then >> - #No substituion occurred, so cputype is not cell >> - return 1 >> - else >> - return 0 >> - fi >> - ;; >> - *) >> - return 0; >> - ;; >> + ppc64/*cell*) >> + return 0 >> + ;; >> + ppc64/*) >> + return 1 >> + ;; >> + *) >> + return 0 >> + ;; >> esac >> } >> >> @@ -1278,7 +1275,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >> fi >> fi >> fi >> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then > > |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2011-03-14 15:53:35
|
Joshua Emele wrote: > Will's patch works perfectly on the box I'm on. Thank you for > simplifying the case statement. Patch committed. -Maynard > > Joshua > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Maynard Johnson <may...@us...> wrote: >> William Cohen wrote: >>> On 03/11/2011 12:42 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: >>>> William Cohen wrote: >>>>> On 03/09/2011 12:11 PM, Joshua Emele wrote: >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a brief discussion in December 2009 (http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac... <mailto:je...@ac...>> >>>>> >>>>> Are the nested cases in is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() needed? Could that be simplified? >>>> Yes, definitely. See updated patch attached below, which I've tested. I'll commit this patch. >>> >>> Is the patch's case correct? Original code did the following >>> >>> return 0 for ppc64/*cell* >>> return 1 for ppc64/* (every ppc64 not cell) >>> return 0 for everything other than ppc64 >> Whoops! You're absolutely right. Good catch. Joshua, can you please test Will's patch. I'll test it on Power AND on Intel (which I neglected to do the first go-round). >> >> -Maynard >>> >>> Shouldn't the case statement be like the attached? >>> >>> -Will >>> >>> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >>> index 8c64af9..3a8a814 100644 >>> --- a/utils/opcontrol >>> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >>> @@ -1149,18 +1149,15 @@ set_ctr_param() >>> is_non_cell_ppc64_variant() >>> { >>> case "$1" in >>> - ppc64/*) >>> - tmp="${1/cell/CELL}" >>> - if test "$1" = "$tmp"; then >>> - #No substituion occurred, so cputype is not cell >>> - return 1 >>> - else >>> - return 0 >>> - fi >>> - ;; >>> - *) >>> - return 0; >>> - ;; >>> + ppc64/*cell*) >>> + return 0 >>> + ;; >>> + ppc64/*) >>> + return 1 >>> + ;; >>> + *) >>> + return 0 >>> + ;; >>> esac >>> } >>> >>> @@ -1278,7 +1275,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >>> fi >>> fi >>> fi >>> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >>> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >>> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >>> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >>> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Colocation vs. Managed Hosting > A question and answer guide to determining the best fit > for your organization - today and in the future. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d > _______________________________________________ > oprofile-list mailing list > opr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list |
From: Joshua E. <je...@gm...> - 2011-03-09 17:31:55
Attachments:
busybox-compat.patch
|
(I am resending because my email client sent my last message as something other than plain text.) There was a brief discussion in December 2009 ( http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH--Fix-incompatibility-between-opcontrol---busybox-td26683323.html) about fixing incompatibilities between opcontrol and busybox. It does not appear the patch was ever accepted. Attached is a patch that uses `wc -c` instead of `wc -m` which is not available with the busybox implementation of wc. The patch also changes the implementation of is_non_cell_ppc64_variant to remove the use of variable substitution, another feature which is not available with the busybox implementation of /bin/sh. Signed-off-by: Joshua Emele <je...@ac...> |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2009-12-08 23:01:02
|
Vitali Lovich wrote: > Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. Your distro's version of wc does not support the -m option? Then it's not posix-compliant. Write a bug against it. We don't ordinarily accept patches to workaround distro bugs. -Maynard > > Thanks. > > diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol > index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 > --- a/utils/opcontrol > +++ b/utils/opcontrol > @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() > fi > fi > fi > - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` > + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` > num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` > GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` > if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, > a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. > Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > oprofile-list mailing list > opr...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list |
From: Vitali L. <Vit...@pa...> - 2009-12-09 05:01:16
|
We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). Thoughts? Thanks, Vitali On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Vitali Lovich wrote: >> Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. > Your distro's version of wc does not support the -m option? Then it's not posix-compliant. Write a bug against it. We don't ordinarily accept patches to workaround distro bugs. > > -Maynard >> >> Thanks. >> >> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >> index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 >> --- a/utils/opcontrol >> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >> fi >> fi >> fi >> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, >> a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. >> Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> oprofile-list mailing list >> opr...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list > |
From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2009-12-09 19:58:22
|
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:00:56PM -0800, Vitali Lovich wrote: > We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). > > Thoughts? Is this the only issue, or is more significant work required? I don't think wc -c is a big deal, but a lot of work would be. regards john |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2009-12-09 15:05:18
|
Vitali Lovich wrote: > We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). But you are certainly not the first to use oprofile on an embedded system with busybox. Why is this affecting just you? *Richard*, as our resident embedded expert, have you had any experience using oprofile with busybox? -Maynard > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Vitali > > On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: > >> Vitali Lovich wrote: >>> Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. >> Your distro's version of wc does not support the -m option? Then it's not posix-compliant. Write a bug against it. We don't ordinarily accept patches to workaround distro bugs. >> >> -Maynard >>> Thanks. >>> >>> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >>> index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 >>> --- a/utils/opcontrol >>> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >>> fi >>> fi >>> fi >>> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >>> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >>> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >>> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >>> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, >>> a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. >>> Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> oprofile-list mailing list >>> opr...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list > |
From: Richard P. <rp...@rp...> - 2009-12-09 17:40:22
|
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 09:04 -0600, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Vitali Lovich wrote: > > We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). > But you are certainly not the first to use oprofile on an embedded system with busybox. Why is this affecting just you? > > *Richard*, as our resident embedded expert, have you had any experience using oprofile with busybox? I have had it working in the past, yes. There are patches from me in the archives to fix various things and all of them were applied in one form or another as I remember. More recently I've had bash available to me on most of my test devices so I've probably not noticed any busybox regressions :/. Cheers, Richard |
From: Vitali L. <Vit...@pa...> - 2009-12-09 16:15:54
|
This is oprofile 0.9.6 specific. Perhaps this is a new incompatibility introduced? On Dec 9, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Vitali Lovich wrote: >> We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). > But you are certainly not the first to use oprofile on an embedded system with busybox. Why is this affecting just you? > > *Richard*, as our resident embedded expert, have you had any experience using oprofile with busybox? > > -Maynard >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> Vitali >> >> On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: >> >>> Vitali Lovich wrote: >>>> Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. >>> Your distro's version of wc does not support the -m option? Then it's not posix-compliant. Write a bug against it. We don't ordinarily accept patches to workaround distro bugs. >>> >>> -Maynard >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >>>> index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 >>>> --- a/utils/opcontrol >>>> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >>>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >>>> fi >>>> fi >>>> fi >>>> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >>>> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >>>> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >>>> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >>>> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, >>>> a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. >>>> Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> oprofile-list mailing list >>>> opr...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list >> > |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2009-12-09 18:17:24
|
Vitali Lovich wrote: > This is oprofile 0.9.6 specific. Perhaps this is a new incompatibility introduced? That particular line has been in opcontrol since oprofile 0.9.3 (Jul 2007). Unless I hear from other busybox users that this is a common problem, I suggest you patch your distro's oprofile rpm to workaround this problem. -Maynard > > On Dec 9, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Maynard Johnson wrote: > >> Vitali Lovich wrote: >>> We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). >> But you are certainly not the first to use oprofile on an embedded system with busybox. Why is this affecting just you? >> >> *Richard*, as our resident embedded expert, have you had any experience using oprofile with busybox? >> >> -Maynard >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vitali >>> >>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Maynard Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> Vitali Lovich wrote: >>>>> Hi. Opcontrol fails to run with busybox due to the -m option not being available. I can't see any problem using -c in this case. >>>> Your distro's version of wc does not support the -m option? Then it's not posix-compliant. Write a bug against it. We don't ordinarily accept patches to workaround distro bugs. >>>> >>>> -Maynard >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/utils/opcontrol b/utils/opcontrol >>>>> index 8aee35a..285a841 100644 >>>>> --- a/utils/opcontrol >>>>> +++ b/utils/opcontrol >>>>> @@ -1240,7 +1240,7 @@ check_event_mapping_data() >>>>> fi >>>>> fi >>>>> fi >>>>> - len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -m` >>>>> + len=`echo -n $event_num | wc -c` >>>>> num_chars_in_grpid=`expr $len - 2` >>>>> GRP_NUM_VAL=`echo | awk '{print substr("'"${event_num}"'",1,"'"${num_chars_in_grpid}"'")}'` >>>>> if [ "$GRP_NUM_CK_VAL" = "" ] ; then >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, >>>>> a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. >>>>> Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> oprofile-list mailing list >>>>> opr...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oprofile-list > |
From: Vitali L. <Vit...@pa...> - 2009-12-09 19:41:26
|
This is the only issue I've encountered related to the command line tools. It occurs only, if I recall correctly, when opcontrol --start is invoked (tracing the program flow - it's when the daemon is started). Thanks, Vitali On Dec 9, 2009, at 11:22 AM, John Levon wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:00:56PM -0800, Vitali Lovich wrote: > >> We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). >> >> Thoughts? > > Is this the only issue, or is more significant work required? I don't > think wc -c is a big deal, but a lot of work would be. > > regards > john |
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2009-12-14 15:43:51
|
Vitali Lovich wrote: > This is the only issue I've encountered related to the command line tools. It occurs only, if I recall correctly, when opcontrol --start is invoked (tracing the program flow - it's when the daemon is started). OK, as this is such a small change and should not have any negative impacts on other users, I'll accept the patch. But please resubmit, using the project's patch submission process (see http://oprofile.sourceforge.net/contribute/). In short, your patch should include a patch to the Changelog file, describing what your patch does, along with a Signed-off-by line. Thanks. -Maynard > > Thanks, > Vitali > > On Dec 9, 2009, at 11:22 AM, John Levon wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 09:00:56PM -0800, Vitali Lovich wrote: >> >>> We are the distro vendor :P. This isn't actually a distro bug so much as busybox not being POSIX compliant. On embedded systems, busybox is quite likely to be used instead of POSIX utils, so I think it might make sense to perhaps allow it at least as an autoconf option (e.g. --enable-busybox or --enable-nonposix). >>> >>> Thoughts? >> Is this the only issue, or is more significant work required? I don't >> think wc -c is a big deal, but a lot of work would be. >> >> regards >> john > |