Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 11:26:43 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     kan.liang@linux.intel.com
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
        jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
        adrian.hunter@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eranian@google.com,
        alexey.v.bayduraev@linux.intel.com, tinghao.zhang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/7] perf/x86/intel: Support LBR event logging
Message-ID: <20231019092643.GF36211@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20231004184044.3062788-1-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
 <20231004184044.3062788-4-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231004184044.3062788-4-kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 11:40:41AM -0700, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:

> +
>  static struct attribute *lbr_attrs[] = {
>  	&dev_attr_branches.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_branch_counter_nr.attr,
> +	&dev_attr_branch_counter_width.attr,
>  	NULL
>  };
>  
> @@ -5590,7 +5665,11 @@ mem_is_visible(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, int i)
>  static umode_t
>  lbr_is_visible(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, int i)
>  {
> -	return x86_pmu.lbr_nr ? attr->mode : 0;
> +	/* branches */
> +	if (i == 0)
> +		return x86_pmu.lbr_nr ? attr->mode : 0;
> +
> +	return (x86_pmu.flags & PMU_FL_LBR_EVENT) ? attr->mode : 0;
>  }

As in the patch this is fairly readable, but I just checked and in the
code lbr_attrs and lbr_is_visible() are rather far away from one another
which makes the whole i thing hard to interpret.

Should we re-organize that a little?