[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090714135120.GA5445@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:51:20 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
eranian@...il.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
Corey J Ashford <cjashfor@...ibm.com>,
Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: I.1 - System calls - ioctl
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:53:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 08:58 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > But talking about syscalls the sys_perf_counter_open prototype is
> > really ugly - it uses either the pid or cpu argument which is a pretty
> > clear indicator it should actually be two sys calls.
>
> Would something like the below be any better?
>
> It would allow us to later add something like PERF_TARGET_SOCKET and
> things like that.
>
> (utterly untested)
And makes the code a couple of magnitudes more ugly.. If you really
add a completely new targer adding a new system call wouldn't be a big
issue. Altough a socket seems like a pretty logical flag extension to
the cpu syscall (or sub-syscall currently), as it would still be
specified as trace the whole cpu socket for this given cpuid.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists