linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/21] perf tools: Introduce struct hist_entry

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:58 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>,
	Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@...g.com.ar>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/21] perf tools: Introduce struct hist_entry_iter

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 02:41:43PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:44:00 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:13:45AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >> There're some duplicate code when adding hist entries.  They are
> >> different in that some have branch info or mem info but generally do
> >> same thing.  So introduce new struct hist_entry_iter and add callbacks
> >> to customize each case in general way.
> >> 
> >> The new perf_evsel__add_entry() function will look like:
> >> 
> >>   iter->prepare_entry();
> >>   iter->add_single_entry();
> >> 
> >>   while (iter->next_entry())
> >>     iter->add_next_entry();
> >> 
> >>   iter->finish_entry();
> >> 
> >> This will help further work like the cumulative callchain patchset.
> 
> [SNIP]
> >> -	if (rep->hide_unresolved && !al->sym)
> >> -		return 0;
> >
> > this check seems to be missing in iter_add_single_mem_entry
> 
> Right.  But afaics it's duplicate as we already check it in
> process_sample_event().

ok.. missed that

jirka
--
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/