[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130318121112.GA8879@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:11:12 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] perf: Add persistent event facilities
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:13:58PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > -static void ring_buffer_put(struct ring_buffer *rb)
> > +void perf_ring_buffer_put(struct ring_buffer *rb)
>
> Why did you rename this function?
Yeah, actually that's not needed.
However, the perf ring buffer function naming is kinda inconsistent:
ring_buffer_*
rb_*
Since we're keeping those internal to perf, they maybe should have the
same prefix, no?
I vote for "rb_" because it is shorter. :)
> > + err_event_file:
> > + perf_event_release_kernel(event);
>
> It needs to reset event to ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) ?
Yeah, the error path in this function is kinda clumsy, I'll do some more
staring at how to make it simpler/better.
[ … ]
> > + __list_del(desc->plist.prev, desc->plist.next);
>
> Why not using list_del(&desc->plist) ?
Will do.
[ … ]
> > + err_event_file:
> > + put_unused_fd(event_fd);
>
> Isn't it safe to have event_fd of -1 in case not found? Anyway, if
> it's returned to the user space directly, it's better having more
> meaningful error code IMHO.
Yeah, I rewrote that one in the meantime to use a helper and it is
cleaner now.
Thanks for the review!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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