[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200402141729.GN2518490@krava>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 16:17:29 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] perf evlist: implement control command handling
functions
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:46:43AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
SNIP
> +
> +int perf_evlist__ctlfd_process(struct evlist *evlist, enum evlist_ctl_cmd *cmd)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + int ctlfd_pos = evlist->ctl_fd_pos;
> + struct pollfd *entries = evlist->core.pollfd.entries;
> +
> + if (!entries[ctlfd_pos].revents)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (entries[ctlfd_pos].revents & POLLIN) {
> + err = perf_evlist__ctlfd_recv(evlist, cmd);
> + if (err > 0) {
> + switch (*cmd) {
> + case CTL_CMD_RESUME:
> + evlist__enable(evlist);
> + break;
> + case CTL_CMD_PAUSE:
> + evlist__disable(evlist);
> + break;
would CTL_CMD_ENABLE, CTL_CMD_DISABLE be better fit in here?
especialy because we have the 'pause' ioctl for sampling,
which I was thinking initialy you are using for record,
and it's still might be better fit for sampling than disable, no?
jirka
> + case CTL_CMD_ACK:
> + case CTL_CMD_UNSUPPORTED:
> + default:
> + pr_debug("ctlfd: unsupported %d\n", *cmd);
> + break;
> + }
> + if (!(*cmd == CTL_CMD_ACK || *cmd == CTL_CMD_UNSUPPORTED))
> + perf_evlist__ctlfd_ack(evlist);
> + }
> + }
> +
SNIP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists