[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5670C634.9090403@huawei.com>
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