linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCHSET] perf ui: Small preparation on further UI work

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87obrgcj5y.fsf@youngshil.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:03:53 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] perf ui: Small preparation on further UI work

Hi,

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:28:08 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:14:25AM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
>> Em Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:44:42PM +0300, Pekka Enberg escreveu: 
>> > Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net> wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>> 
>> I think it'd be better moving the TUI specific codes to a separate file
>> (under a separate directory, like tools/perf/util/ui/tui - but it looks
>> like so deep nesting) rather than a function since the generic
>
> What do you have against directory trees? :P We need to chop off the
> /util/ part, but apart from that...
>
>> code (setup_browser) should be compiled without the TUI support.
>> Otherwise we'll see some #ifdef's in the source file(s).
>> 
>> Or, we can put those codes under the same directory (tools/perf/util/ui)
>> and have different suffixes - say, if generic code were XXX.c, TUI one
>> would be XXX-tui.c and GTK+ one would be XXX-gtk.c.
>
> ... what is the difference of using:
>
> tools/perf/util/ui/tui/init.c
>
> instead of:
>
> tools/perf/util/ui/tui-init.c
>
> ?
>

Nothing. I just want to remain the directory nesting level if you care. :)


> Since we'll be introducing new files, it seems the first step would be
> to just do a simple, no changes in the files, move of
> tools/perf/util/ui/ to tools/perf/ui/ and then introduce
> tools/perf/ui/tui/{init,etc}.c
>
> Gtk would as well be moved to tools/perf/ui/gtk/.
>

Yeah, This is what I wanted to have from the begining. I'll revise my
patches after moving the files to tools/perf/ui.

> At some point we would then introduce some sort of plugin mechanism
> where files found in /usr/lib/perf/ui/ or some other suitable directory
> would be loaded in a modprobe like way, i.e. if the user asks for --gtk,
> it would try to find /usr/lib/perf/ui/gtk.so and try to load it, etc.
>
> That way we start to reduce the miriad libraries that we have linked in
> the main perf binary, making it easier for packaging, etc.
>
> - Arnaldo

That would be great!

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/