[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2b00b05-a95a-3d03-7238-267c642a1fa0@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 09:25:10 -0400
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, sean.j.christopherson@...el.com,
vkuznets@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
ak@...ux.intel.com, wei.w.wang@...el.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
like.xu@...el.com, ehankland@...gle.com, arbel.moshe@...cle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf/core: Provide a kernel-internal interface to
recalibrate event period
On 10/7/2019 8:01 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 30/09/19 09:22, Like Xu wrote:
>> -static int perf_event_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 __user *arg)
>> +static int _perf_event_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 value)
>
> __perf_event_period or perf_event_period_locked would be more consistent
> with other code in Linux.
>
But that will be not consistent with current perf code. For example,
_perf_event_enable(), _perf_event_disable(), _perf_event_reset() and
_perf_event_refresh().
Currently, The function name without '_' prefix is the one exported and
with lock. The function name with '_' prefix is the main body.
If we have to use the "_locked" or "__", I think we'd better change the
name for other functions as well.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists