Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:13:00 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 04/13] perf stat: factor out body of event handling
 loop for system wide
Message-ID: <20200625171300.GK2719003@krava>
References: <0781a077-aa82-5b4a-273e-c17372a72b93@linux.intel.com>
 <eeeff629-925a-530b-9803-f274337ae473@linux.intel.com>
 <20200623145630.GK2619137@krava>
 <51d5511a-e9a7-2865-c81b-57488e820f8d@linux.intel.com>
 <20200625121719.GI2719003@krava>
 <fdaba173-a046-beae-f8f2-07840c879475@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fdaba173-a046-beae-f8f2-07840c879475@linux.intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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?

jirka

> 
> ~Alexey
>