Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754329Ab3HWJqD (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:46:03 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com ([209.85.214.41]:59686 "EHLO mail-bk0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753724Ab3HWJqB (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 05:46:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:45:56 +0200 From: Robert Richter To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Vince Weaver , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vince Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] [RFC] perf, persistent: ioctl functions to control persistency Message-ID: <20130823094556.GB10223@rric.localhost> References: <1377180807-12758-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <1377180807-12758-13-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <20130823091128.GA19548@nazgul.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130823091128.GA19548@nazgul.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1771 Lines: 41 On 23.08.13 11:11:28, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:18:06PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote: > > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_ATTACH (Since Linux 3.xx) > > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_DETACH (Since Linux 3.xx) > > > > I think these aren't very good names for the ioctls. Maybe something > > like > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_MAKE_PERSISTENT > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_UNPERSIST > > I know that last one's not a real word but I can't think of what the > > proper term would be. Maybe > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_RELEASE_PERSISTENT > > PERF_EVENT_IOC_RECLAIM_PERSISTENT > > "aren't very good names" is not really an argument I can work with. Why > not? What if you want to attach/detach to events but not be persistent. > Which also begs the question how long are we persistent? The whole > system runtime or until the user decides to detach. > > So ATTACH/DETACH in the sense of attaching processes to events for an > arbitrary amount of time *and* *not* for the duration of the tracee > as we do it currently implicitly, is much more generic wrt usage than > specifying that specific persistent case. Ok, for clarification, my intention was to say something like 'detach event from the current process controlling it', or 'attach the event to the current process that holds the fd'. Whatever term is the best for this ioctls, I am fine with it. The above terms look a bit long. The problem with detach/attach is more that it's actually more logically to attach first and afterwards detach. This is not the case here, it's vise versa. -Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/