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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:44:42 +0300 (EEST) From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net> cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] perf ui: Small preparation on further UI work On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > My plans were for util/ui/ to be this generalization you want to, hence > I didn't use the 't', i.e. I didn't call it util/tui/, because tui would > be just one of the possible backends. > > But that still needs more work that I haven't be able to pursue. Pekka > thinks that doing it that way is not OK as it would limit what one could > do with a more featureful UI like GTK+. > > I would like to still pursue a simple GUI using a function table for > the simple operations we use in the hists browser in > tools/perf/util/ui/ but if others want to pursue it the way the GTK+ > browser is being worked on, more power to them. > > So I would just leave things in tools/perf/util/ui/ and do what you did > in moving the TUI specific bits to a separate function, even ui__init() > would be ok for now, and then at setup_browser() check what kind of > interface is being used and call ui__init() if it is the TUI and the > gtk init one if GTK+ was chosen. > > But wouldn't introduce tools/perf/ui/setup.c for that, no need for new > directory trees, I think :-) I actually completely agree that we should aggressively consolidate code between TUI and GTK back-ends. I also do think going for function table for simple operations make sense. What I think we disagreed about is that I don't want to make a totally new abstraction for perf that hides the differences between TUI and GTK completely. That is, I think both UI implementations should be allowed to have different UI layouts and use all the toolkit specific extensions if necessary. I completely missed the newly added tools/perf/ui directory which doesn't make much sense. We definitely ought to consolidate all this code under tools/perf/util/ui and gradually move the tui code out of it instead. [ I would, however, like to make the directory nesting less deep by dropping the "util" part from the directory name. But that's a completely different topic. ] Pekka -- 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