linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/20] perf annotate: Pass struct annotation_options to map_symbol__annotation

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:   Mon, 6 Aug 2018 17:29:31 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/20] perf annotate: Pass struct annotation_options to
 map_symbol__annotation_dump

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 12:22:19PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

SNIP

> > > > -				 ops->set_jumps_percent_color, ops->printf,
> > > > -				 ops->write_graph);
> > > > +	__annotation_line__write(al, notes, wops->first_line, wops->current_entry,
> > > > +				 wops->change_color, wops->width, wops->obj,
> > > > +				 opts->percent_type,
> > > > +				 wops->set_color, wops->set_percent_color,
> > > > +				 wops->set_jumps_percent_color, wops->printf,
> > > > +				 wops->write_graph);
> > > 
> > > This doesn't look good.  Why not just passing a pointer to wops
> > > instead of each fields separately?
> > 
> > yep, my thoughts exactly when I saw this ;-) we probably had some
> 
> But then, while this is a valid observation, it is not related to this
> patchkit, that is just adding an extra config variable, percent_type, at
> some point one can try to shorten that function signature, looking at
> why it was done this way originally to see if there was any reason or if
> its just something to improve by shortening the function signature.
> 
> Applying Jiri's patch,
> 
> > other caller..  however I only wanted to add one more param ;-)
> 
> Right
>  
> > I'll check what we can do with this in v2
> 
> I'm going thru v2 already, so far its an uncontrovertial, trivial, so
> I think you better just wait a teeny bit for this to be applied and then
> get on over with followup patches, ok?

sure, np

jirka