[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150828132052.GF2759@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:20:52 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Raphaƫl Beamonte <raphael.beamonte@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] perf tools: Propagate error info for the
tracepoint parsing
On Wed, 26 Aug, at 03:46:51PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Pass 'struct parse_events_error *error' to the parse-event.c
> tracepoint adding path. It will be filled with error data
> in following patches.
>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-las1hm5zf58b0twd27h9895b@git.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> ---
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.h | 3 ++-
> tools/perf/util/parse-events.y | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Is there a reason you decided to go ahead with passing 'data->error'
directly to the parsing functions instead of adding some global state
for recording errors, like a globally accessible 'parse_events_error'?
Because I notice that if someone wanted to improve the breakpoint
parsing code, they'd basically need to make the same changes you've
made in this patch.
--
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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