[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251202112147.GT724103@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 11:21:47 +0000
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...ux.dev>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] perf tools: Track all user changed config bits
On Tue, Dec 02, 2025 at 10:40:49AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
>
>
> On 02/12/2025 10:15 am, Leo Yan wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 04:41:04PM +0000, Coresight ML wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +#define ADD_CONFIG_CHG(format_type, term_type, new_term) \
> > > +{ \
> > > + struct parse_events_term *term; \
> > > + u64 bits = 0; \
> > > + int type; \
> > > + \
> > > + list_for_each_entry(term, &head_config->terms, list) { \
> > > + if (term->type_term == PARSE_EVENTS__TERM_TYPE_USER) { \
> > > + type = perf_pmu__format_type(pmu, term->config);\
> > > + if (type != format_type) \
> > > + continue; \
> > > + bits |= perf_pmu__format_bits(pmu, term->config); \
> > > + } else if (term->type_term == term_type) { \
> > > + bits = ~(u64)0; \
> > > + } \
> > > + } \
> > > + \
> > > + if (bits) \
> > > + ADD_CONFIG_TERM_VAL(new_term, cfg_chg, bits, false); \
> > > + return 0; \
> >
> > Nitpick: "return 0" is not needed here. Otherwise:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
>
> I think it's worse than not needed, it makes it stop collecting the changes
> after the first one.
Just curious how this can happen.
foo()
{
{
chunk 1;
}
{
chunk 2;
}
}
Seem to me, if without "return 0" in chunk 1, it still can continue to
run chunk 2, no?
> It was annoying that this had to be a macro instead of a function because
> ADD_CONFIG_TERM_VAL constructs the #define name of the first argument.
>
> It's probably worth putting in some effort to make ADD_CONFIG_CHG() a
> function to avoid problems like this and maybe add a test.
This would be fine for me.
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists