[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180112105249.GB24958@krava>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:52:49 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"yao.jin@...ux.intel.com" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 07/12] perf mmap: discard legacy interface for mmap
read
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 09:28:07PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 10:08:49AM -0800, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> > > From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Discards perf_mmap__read_backward and perf_mmap__read_catchup.
> > No tools
> > > use them.
> > >
> > > There are tools still use perf_mmap__read_forward. Keep it, but add
> > > comments to point to the new interface for future use.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/perf/util/mmap.c | 50 ++++----------------------------------------------
> > > tools/perf/util/mmap.h | 3 ---
> > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/mmap.c b/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> > > index d0ca3ba..650e0a7 100644
> > > --- a/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/mmap.c
> > > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ static union perf_event *perf_mmap__read(struct
> > perf_mmap *map,
> > > return event;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * legacy interface for mmap read.
> > > + * Don't use it. Use perf_mmap__read_event().
> > > + */
> >
> > could we get rid of it then? looks like it's not much work,
> > seems it's used only in:
> >
>
> To get rid of it, it has to introduce the whole
> perf_mmap__read_init/_read_event/_done.
>
> Besides perf top, kvm and trace need to be changed.
> There are also 11 perf test cases need to be changed as well.
>
> I think that would make current patch series too huge.
> I can submit a separated patch series later to get rid of
> the legacy interface. Is it OK?
ok
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists