linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] perf tools: Create for_each

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:02:22 +0900
From:   Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] perf tools: Create for_each_event macro for
 tracepoints iteration

Hi, Arnaldo :)

On 01/31/2017 09:21 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 08:38:28PM +0900, Taeung Song escreveu:
>> Such as for_each_subsystem and for_each_event in util/parse-events.c,
>> add new macros 'for_each_event' for easy iteration over the tracepoints
>> in order to be more compact and readable.
>
> Looks ok, applied, but look below for some minor suggestions.
>
> - Arnaldo
>
>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
>> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Taeung Song <treeze.taeung@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/util/trace-event-info.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/trace-event-info.c b/tools/perf/util/trace-event-info.c
>> index ceb0e27..fb6d95d 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/trace-event-info.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/trace-event-info.c
>> @@ -170,6 +170,12 @@ static bool name_in_tp_list(char *sys, struct tracepoint_path *tps)
>>  	return false;
>>  }
>>
>> +#define for_each_event(dir, dent, tps)				\
>> +	while ((dent = readdir(dir)))				\
>> +		if (dent->d_type == DT_DIR &&			\
>> +		    (strcmp(dent->d_name, ".")) &&		\
>> +		    (strcmp(dent->d_name, "..")))		\
>> +
>>  static int copy_event_system(const char *sys, struct tracepoint_path *tps)
>>  {
>>  	struct dirent *dent;
>> @@ -186,12 +192,10 @@ static int copy_event_system(const char *sys, struct tracepoint_path *tps)
>>  		return -errno;
>>  	}
>>
>> -	while ((dent = readdir(dir))) {
>> -		if (dent->d_type != DT_DIR ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, ".") == 0 ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, "..") == 0 ||
>> -		    !name_in_tp_list(dent->d_name, tps))
>> +	for_each_event(dir, dent, tps) {
>> +		if (!name_in_tp_list(dent->d_name, tps))
>>  			continue;
>> +
>>  		if (asprintf(&format, "%s/%s/format", sys, dent->d_name) < 0) {
>>  			err = -ENOMEM;
>>  			goto out;
>> @@ -210,12 +214,10 @@ static int copy_event_system(const char *sys, struct tracepoint_path *tps)
>>  	}
>>
>>  	rewinddir(dir);
>> -	while ((dent = readdir(dir))) {
>> -		if (dent->d_type != DT_DIR ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, ".") == 0 ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, "..") == 0 ||
>> -		    !name_in_tp_list(dent->d_name, tps))
>> +	for_each_event(dir, dent, tps) {
>> +		if (!name_in_tp_list(dent->d_name, tps))
>>  			continue;
>> +
>>  		if (asprintf(&format, "%s/%s/format", sys, dent->d_name) < 0) {
>>  			err = -ENOMEM;
>>  			goto out;
>> @@ -290,13 +292,11 @@ static int record_event_files(struct tracepoint_path *tps)
>>  		goto out;
>>  	}
>>
>> -	while ((dent = readdir(dir))) {
>> -		if (dent->d_type != DT_DIR ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, ".") == 0 ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, "..") == 0 ||
>> -		    strcmp(dent->d_name, "ftrace") == 0 ||
>> +	for_each_event(dir, dent, tps) {
>> +		if (!strcmp(dent->d_name, "ftrace") ||
>
> the existing style was == 0, you switched it to !, equivalent, but
> gratuitous, keeping the existing style would make reviewing slightly
> faster, as the pattern wouldn't have changed.
>

I understood !!
In the future, I'll think this when making some patches.

Thanks,
Taeung