linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/73] libperf: Add perf

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: <20190923150943.GA19642@krava>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:09:43 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/73] libperf: Add perf_mmap struct

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:05:33PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 03:22:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > Add the perf_mmap to libperf.
> > 
> > The definition is added into:
> > 
> >   include/internal/mmap.h
> > 
> > which is not to be included by users, but shared
> > within perf and libperf.
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/lib/include/internal/mmap.h b/tools/perf/lib/include/internal/mmap.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..8d10559dee49
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/perf/lib/include/internal/mmap.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +#ifndef __LIBPERF_INTERNAL_MMAP_H
> > +#define __LIBPERF_INTERNAL_MMAP_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/refcount.h>
> > +#include <linux/compiler.h>
> > +#include <stdlib.h>
> > +#include <stdbool.h>
> 
> So you're doing this with high granularity, cool! But then you should
> take care not to add unnecessary stuff here, i.e. these four headers are

yea, they will be needed for added fields in following patches

> not necessary at this point in the series, I'm removing them and adding
> as they become necessary.

ok, thanks

jirka