Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230109223110.1201541-1-irogers@google.com> <CAM9d7cgGq=+MC+qwRNxO=0Bn_ZMOucEzh_WWH95Lq8fsYHMb4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-5=fXniy80Jpc2Hu=-GF7yDNUNHjs0=B2iqkUkMb6zArPukg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9d7chS+91Nep8FtsJsOdTvMJ0HhkSD1_Fn70=hWPi7a1JpfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP-5=fUXoOFueaeSD2D9H+xoH5tKXRHK1164yPSX8_m_Nx_AeQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-5=fUXoOFueaeSD2D9H+xoH5tKXRHK1164yPSX8_m_Nx_AeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 21:57:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ci3du09=uc05to7rLaRG7KCuwdLEFZ_492jcO7cOY7RAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] perf tools: Remove HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@huawei.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>,
        German Gomez <german.gomez@arm.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@redhat.com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:55 AM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:09 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 3:38 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 2:57 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ian,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 2:31 PM Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/sort.c b/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > > index e188f74698dd..cfcc253239f0 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/sort.c
> > > > > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> > > > >  #include "time-utils.h"
> > > > >  #include "cgroup.h"
> > > > >  #include "machine.h"
> > > > > +#include "trace-event.h"
> > > > >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > > >  #include <linux/string.h>
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -2667,7 +2668,7 @@ static int64_t __sort__hde_cmp(struct perf_hpp_fmt *fmt,
> > > > >                 tep_read_number_field(field, a->raw_data, &dyn);
> > > > >                 offset = dyn & 0xffff;
> > > > >                 size = (dyn >> 16) & 0xffff;
> > > > > -#ifdef HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE
> > > > > +#if LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION >= MAKE_LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION(1, 5, 0)
> > > > >                 if (field->flags & TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE)
> > > > >                         offset += field->offset + field->size;
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I missed the previous discussion.
> > > >
> > > > As it's only used in the bit test, can we have something like this
> > > > in the header file?
> > > >
> > > > #if LIBTRACE_EVENT_VERSION < ...(1, 5, 0)
> > > > # define TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE  0
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Namhyung
> > >
> > > We could but I think we lose some of the intention revealing-ness that
> > > TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE is only present with libtraceevent 1.5.0 or
> > > newer.
> >
> > I'm not sure how important it is to reveal the intention.
> > I think we wanted to minimize #ifdef-ery in the .c file and
> > moved the conditionals to the header.  Maybe we can add
> > a wrapper like this.
> >
> > #if LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION >= ...(1, 5, 0)
> > static inline bool is_relative_field(field)
> > {
> >     return field->flags & TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE;
> > }
> > #else
> > static inline bool is_relative_field(field)
> > {
> >     return false;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Namhyung
>
> Sounds good. Should the change be part of this one or a follow up
> patch? A follow up patch seems cleanest, I can add it to v2.

Sounds good.

Thanks,
Namhyung