pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] Problem with pmUnits in latest changes

To: Max <makc@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Problem with pmUnits in latest changes
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:16:44 +1100
Cc: "pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <71C9595D-DA7D-4361-853D-BAAB6E32304A@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <71C9595D-DA7D-4361-853D-BAAB6E32304A@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me simply quote directly from pmapi.h ...

/*
 * pmUnits.scaleCount (e.g. count events, syscalls, interrupts, etc.)
 * -- these are simply powers of 10, and not enumerated here,
 *    e.g. 6 for 10^6, or -3 for 10^-3
 */
#define PM_COUNT_ONE    0       /* 1 */

So they are powers of 10, and negative numbers are acceptable ...
although I do admit the notion of a microevent or nanopacket is not all
that common ... 8^)>


On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 11:13 +1100, Max wrote:
> 
> On 20/10/2009, at 6:49, Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > This commit is not quite correct.  I'll have the fix soon, but this is
> > just a heads up before this one escapes too far.
> >
> > QA 027 (at least) is failing as a result.
> The fix makes me think if 027 is testing the right things- when would  
> it make sense to have negative scale counts? I thought all counts were  
> supposed to be enums like.
> 
> max
> >
> 
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>