linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] perf test: Handle metric reuse in pmu-events parsing test

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: <6bb503e4-8d75-62a6-3c10-8478df9c3e44@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Apr 2021 14:38:27 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC:     <will@...nel.org>, <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        <leo.yan@...aro.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
        <acme@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        <irogers@...gle.com>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>, <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>, <pc@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] perf test: Handle metric reuse in pmu-events
 parsing test

On 06/04/2021 14:34, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>
>> }
>>
>> So once we evaluate a pmu_event in pctx->ids in @pe, @all is set false, and
>> we would loop again in the do-while loop, regardless of what
>> expr__find_other() does (apart from erroring), and so call
>> hashmap__for_each_entry_safe(&pctx->ids, ) again.
> ah ok, so it finishes the hash iteration first and
> then restarts it.. ok, I missed that, then it's fine
>  >> This is really what is done in __resolve_metric() - indeed, I would 
use that
>> function directly, but it looks hard to extract that from metricgroup.c .
> yea, it's another world;-)  it's better to keep it separated

ok, so I'll still add the break statement, as suggested.

I'll also wait to see if Ian or you have a strong feeling about the 
function naming in patch 1/6.

Thanks,
John