[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150623220312.GC24969@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:03:12 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/27] perf stat: Introduce perf_counts function
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:11:54PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:36:10AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > Introducing perf_counts function, that returns
> > 'struct perf_counts_values' pointer for given cpu.
> > - evsel->counts->cpu[cpu] = *count;
> > + *perf_counts(evsel->counts, cpu) = *count;
>
> For consistency, just like thread_map__set_pid(), please have a:
it's consistent with xyarray__entry
>
> perf_counts__set(evsel->counts, *cont);
>
> In addition to its counterpart:
>
> perf_counts__value(evsel->counts, cpu);
>
> Since you're not storing multiple entries per bucket, we need to use the
> "value" idiom.
perf_counts returns pointer to the 'struct perf_counts_values'
which is clean and valid and IMO the code is more readable
You use just 'perf_counts(counts, cpu, thread)' and get values
and do whatever you want with them.. why introduce 2 functions
for it?
thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists