[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1276845118.27822.1443.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 09:11:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: paulus <paulus@...ba.org>,
stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Deng-Cheng Zhu <dengcheng.zhu@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] perf: Per PMU disable
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 04:14 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 06:00:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +static void armpmu_pmu_enable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > {
> > +static void powerpc_pmu_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > {
> > +static void fsl_emb_pmu_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > {
> > +static void sh_pmu_pmu_enable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > +{
> > +static void sparc_pmu_pmu_enable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > {
> > +static void x86_pmu_pmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
> > {
>
>
> These namings are really bad. Why not just using pmu once
> in each names? x86_pmu_enable, etc...
Because some of those were already taken:
static const struct pmu pmu = {
.enable = x86_pmu_enable,
.disable = x86_pmu_disable,
--
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