[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200601132147.GB1031432@krava>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 15:21:47 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...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>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] perf tests: Add another pmu-events tests
On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 12:44:15AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
SNIP
> > + memset(&error, 0, sizeof(error));
> > + ret = parse_events_fake(evlist, id, &error);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_debug("str : %s\n", error.str);
> > + pr_debug("help : %s\n", error.help);
> > + pr_debug("first_str : %s\n", error.first_str);
> > + pr_debug("first_help : %s\n", error.first_help);
> > + }
> > +
> > + evlist__delete(evlist);
> > + free(error.str);
> > + free(error.help);
> > + free(error.first_str);
> > + free(error.first_help);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> This is quite similar to check_parse_id, fold them together?
there is the 'same_cpu' logic in check_parse_id,
so I did not want to mess with that
>
> > +
> > +static int metric_parse_fake(const char *str)
> > +{
> > + struct expr_parse_ctx ctx;
> > + struct hashmap_entry *cur;
> > + double result;
> > + int ret = -1;
> > + size_t bkt;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + pr_debug("parsing '%s'\n", str);
> > +
> > + expr__ctx_init(&ctx);
> > + if (expr__find_other(str, NULL, &ctx, 0) < 0) {
> > + pr_err("expr__find_other failed\n");
> > + return -1;
> > + }
> > +
> > + i = 1;
> > + hashmap__for_each_entry((&ctx.ids), cur, bkt)
> > + expr__add_id(&ctx, strdup(cur->key), i++);
>
> It might make sense to share the code here with that in test_parsing.
> This initialization of ids is commented there and it is a bit special.
hum, not sure it's worth to add this complexity to test, I'd like
to keep it simple, it's already not straightforward ;-) I added the
comment you mentioned
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists