| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:02:28 +0800 From: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com> To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> CC: <acme@...nel.org>, <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <pi3orama@....com>, <lizefan@...wei.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for BPF maps On 2015/12/15 21:42, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:39:19AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote: >> This patch introduce a new syntax to perf event parser: >> >> # perf record -e './test_bpf_map_3.c/maps:channel.value[0,1,2,3...5]=101/' usleep 2 > why 3 dots? I'd think the standard is 2 ? The standard (actually it is a gcc extension, not C standard) is 3 dots. Please have a look at [1] and [2]. Although I also think '..' is better. So after you seeing this, do you still think we should follow our intuition instead of following GCC? If you still prefer '..' I'll change it. Thank you. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/23/4 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Case-Ranges.html Thank you. > just curious > [0,1,2,3..5] > 3 made me think there's something speecial about it ;-) > > > 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