[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561C0A1E.2080500@plumgrid.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:29:34 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
To: Kaixu Xia <xiakaixu@...wei.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net
Cc: wangnan0@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pi3orama@....com, hekuang@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bpf: Implement
bpf_perf_event_sample_enable/disable() helpers
On 10/12/15 2:02 AM, Kaixu Xia wrote:
> +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_event_sample_enable_proto;
> +extern const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_perf_event_sample_disable_proto;
externs are unnecessary. Just make them static.
Also I prefer single helper that takes a flag, so we can extend it
instead of adding func_id for every little operation.
To avoid conflicts if you touch kernel/bpf/* or bpf.h please always
base your patches of net-next.
> + atomic_set(&map->perf_sample_disable, 0);
global flag per map is no go.
events are independent and should be treated as such.
Please squash these two patches, since they're part of one logical
feature. Splitting them like this only makes review harder.
--
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