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, 3 Sep 2020 15:50:54 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To:     Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huawei.com>,
        James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>,
        Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com>, Al Grant <Al.Grant@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/14] perf mem: Introduce weak function
 perf_mem_events__ptr()
Message-ID: <20200903135054.GD713364@krava>
References: <20200901083815.13755-1-leo.yan@linaro.org>
 <20200901083815.13755-3-leo.yan@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200901083815.13755-3-leo.yan@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:38:03AM +0100, Leo Yan wrote:

SNIP

> @@ -2941,30 +2942,38 @@ static int perf_c2c__record(int argc, const char **argv)
>  	rec_argv[i++] = "record";
>  
>  	if (!event_set) {
> -		perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record  = true;
> -		perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE].record = true;
> +		e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> +		e->record = true;
> +
> +		e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__STORE);
> +		e->record = true;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (perf_mem_events[PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD].record)
> +	e = perf_mem_events__ptr(PERF_MEM_EVENTS__LOAD);
> +	if (e->record)
>  		rec_argv[i++] = "-W";
>  
>  	rec_argv[i++] = "-d";
>  	rec_argv[i++] = "--phys-data";
>  	rec_argv[i++] = "--sample-cpu";
>  
> -	for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> -		if (!perf_mem_events[j].record)
> +	j = 0;
> +	while ((e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL) {
> +		if (!e->record) {

you could keep the above 'for loop' in here, it seems better
than taking care of j++

> +			j++;
>  			continue;
> +		}
>  
> -		if (!perf_mem_events[j].supported) {
> +		if (!e->supported) {
>  			pr_err("failed: event '%s' not supported\n",
> -			       perf_mem_events[j].name);
> +			       perf_mem_events__name(j));
>  			free(rec_argv);
>  			return -1;
>  		}
>  
>  		rec_argv[i++] = "-e";
>  		rec_argv[i++] = perf_mem_events__name(j);
> +		j++;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (all_user)

SNIP

> @@ -100,11 +106,14 @@ static int __cmd_record(int argc, const char **argv, struct perf_mem *mem)
>  	if (mem->phys_addr)
>  		rec_argv[i++] = "--phys-data";
>  
> -	for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) {
> -		if (!perf_mem_events[j].record)
> +	j = 0;
> +	while ((e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j)) != NULL) {
> +		if (!e->record) {

same here

thanks,
jirka

> +			j++;
>  			continue;
> +		}
>  
> -		if (!perf_mem_events[j].supported) {
> +		if (!e->supported) {
>  			pr_err("failed: event '%s' not supported\n",
>  			       perf_mem_events__name(j));
>  			free(rec_argv);
> @@ -113,6 +122,7 @@ static int __cmd_record(int argc, const char **argv, struct perf_mem *mem)
>  
>  		rec_argv[i++] = "-e";
>  		rec_argv[i++] = perf_mem_events__name(j);
> +		j++;

SNIP