linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] perf stat: factor out body of event handling loop for system wide

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: <78a2f7cf-3f5c-decc-fd91-5a2c38548f52@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:43:54 +0300
From:   Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        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 v8 04/13] perf stat: factor out body of event handling
 loop for system wide


On 25.06.2020 20:13, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 07:01:08PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
>>>>
>>>> Well, ok.
>>>>
>>>> I will rename process_interval() to __process_interval() and
>>>> then print_interval() to process_interval().
>>>>
>>>> Regarding timeout let's have it like this:
>>>>
>>>> static bool process_timeout(int timeout)
>>>> {
>>>> 	return timeout ? true : false;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> can't this just stay as value check after finished poll?
>>>
>>> 	if (timeout)
>>> 		break;
>>>
>>> and then separate call to process_interval(interval, times)?
>>
>> Like this? Still makes sense to have it in a single function.
>>
>> static bool process_timing_settings(int timeout, unsigned int interval, int *times)
>> {
>> 	bool res = timeout ? true : false;
>>         if (!res)
>>  		res = process_interval(interval, times);
>>  	return res;
>> }
> 
> I don't see the connection between timeout and interval
> IMO this just complicates things, is there a problem to
> keep it separated as it is now?

Not a problem. Can duplicate it in dispatch_events().

~Alexey