lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND v1 02/11] perf mem: Introduce weak function perf_mem_events__ptr()
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 04:40:29PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
> Hi Leo,
>
> On 06/08/2020 04:07, Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].record)
> > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j);
> > + if (!e->record)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].supported) {
> > + if (!e->supported) {
> > pr_err("failed: event '%s' not supported\n",
> > - perf_mem_events[j].name);
> > + perf_mem_events__name(j));
> > free(rec_argv);
> > return -1;
>
> Does it make sense to do something like:
>
> for(j = 0; e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j); j++) {
> ...
> }
>
> now that it's a weak function that returns NULL when the argument out of range. That way the caller
> doesn't need to know about PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX as well and it could potentially be a different
> value. I don't know if it would ever make sense to have a different number of events on different platforms?

Thanks for reviewing, James.

If you look into the later patch "perf mem: Support new memory event
PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD_STORE", you could find it introduces a new event
which will be only used for Arm SPE but will not be used by other
archs.

Your suggestion is good to encapsulate the macro PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX
into perf_mem_events__ptr(), I will try it in next spin.

Thanks,
Leo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-31 04:53    [W:0.049 / U:3.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site