[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150907122954.GH5806@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:29:54 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf tests: Add arch tests
On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 08:02:21PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
SNIP
>
> +static struct test *tests[] = {
> + generic_tests,
> + arch_tests,
> +};
> +
> static bool perf_test__matches(struct test *test, int curr, int argc, const char *argv[])
> {
> int i;
> @@ -237,7 +229,11 @@ static int run_test(struct test *test)
> return err;
> }
>
> -#define for_each_test(t) for (t = &tests[0]; t->func; t++)
> +static unsigned int ___j; /* This is obviously not thread-safe */
> +
> +#define for_each_test(t) \
> + for (___j = 0; ___j < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); ___j++) \
> + for (t = &tests[___j][0]; t->func; t++)
>
could you also split the change on adding support for arch_tests
and another actually moving affected tests?
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