linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] perf script: Move printing of 'common' data from print

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]

Message-ID: <4D781C16.3080706@cisco.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:32:22 -0700
From:	David Ahern <daahern@...co.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] perf script: Move printing of 'common' data from
 print_event and rename



On 03/09/11 17:22, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:15:00PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/11 17:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>>
>>> And if you actually keep those functions in place?
>>
>>     CC /tmp/build-perf/util/trace-event-read.o
>> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
>> util/trace-event-parse.c:2652:13: error: 'print_graph_cpu' defined but
>> not used
>> util/trace-event-parse.c:2681:13: error: 'print_graph_proc' defined but
>> not used
>> make: *** [/tmp/build-perf/util/trace-event-parse.o] Error 1
>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> 
> All right, that's because you removed their calls in pretty_print_func_ent().
> So either you remove the whole in a specific patch, pretty_print_func_ent()
> included and other related functions, or you keep them.
> 
> But I prefer we don't do something halfway, and in particular not in a
> semi-hidden way inside a patch that is not particularly focused on that
> purpose.

You lost me on the halfway part.

So you want a separate patch that removes the code for an incomplete
feature -- which means changing the references to the functions in that
patch? The intent being a patch that can be reverted later?

What about the cpu argument which was only kept in print_trace_event to
avoid the removal of more code? Leave it and the additional code or take
it out?

David
--
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/