linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf, tools, stat: Factor out callback for collecting event values

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170303231610.GK26852@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:16:11 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, acme@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf, tools, stat: Factor out callback for
 collecting event values

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 11:33:03AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:49:15PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > +static void collect_data(struct perf_evsel *counter,
> > +			    void (*cb)(struct perf_evsel *counter, void *data,
> > +				       bool first),
> > +			    void *data)
> > +{
> > +	cb(counter, data, true);
> > +}
> > +
> > +struct aggr_data {
> > +	u64 ena, run, val;
> > +	int id;
> > +	int nr;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void aggr_cb(struct perf_evsel *counter, void *data, bool first)
> > +{
> > +	struct aggr_data *ad = data;
> > +	int cpu, cpu2, s2;
> > +
> > +	for (cpu = 0; cpu < perf_evsel__nr_cpus(counter); cpu++) {
> > +		struct perf_counts_values *counts;
> > +
> > +		cpu2 = perf_evsel__cpus(counter)->map[cpu];
> > +		s2 = aggr_get_id(evsel_list->cpus, cpu2);
> 
> that does not match the removed code.. why?
>                 s2 = aggr_get_id(perf_evsel__cpus(counter), cpu);

I added it at some point during debugging. I think it's
actually a nop here, but technically it's correct (we're
always supposed to remap)

I can remove it, but it's really a small code cleanup.

-Andi