Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753309Ab1CPRxY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:53:24 -0400 Received: from mail-yi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:43545 "EHLO mail-yi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751218Ab1CPRxR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:53:17 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-url:user-agent; b=nJU/ntl2RiHCAwSwRAe3zPjSqj75Sfbo6mj4R2Kt6h5Rfl4Y6vMTH6/BNLnFRuYHU9 N+dPxOQcQOZaLo07TGIrZLoq21FoXYF/XflgIu1YZTA+p/ljFUji1Ex4r9cmFvu3SqJ6 2uxkVEiEgNxgQ9KHepzoPhhH8MulSZ6qfT8sU= Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:53:10 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Mackerras , Stephane Eranian , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner , Hitoshi Mitake , "2nddept-manager@sdl.hitachi.co.jp" <2nddept-manager@sdl.hitachi.co.jp> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] perf: Custom contexts Message-ID: <20110316175310.GA2861@ghostprotocols.net> References: <20110314205100.GG6139@nowhere> <20110314210315.GC2388@ghostprotocols.net> <20110314212050.GH6139@nowhere> <20110314215603.GD2388@ghostprotocols.net> <20110314224344.GA11443@nowhere> <20110314230211.GG2388@ghostprotocols.net> <20110315185812.GB6605@nowhere> <20110315192422.GF7011@ghostprotocols.net> <20110316010304.GB7760@nowhere> <4D80DB75.6060408@hitachi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D80DB75.6060408@hitachi.com> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com 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: 1695 Lines: 38 Em Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:47:01AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu: > (2011/03/16 10:03), Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Doh you're right. && would have two meaning. > > No we should probably keep a && b has a meaning of we are > > in the range a AND in the range b. Both at the same time, with > > a evaluated first and then b. We also need to ensure than > > a && b doesn't mean the same than b && a. You're right, perhaps > > we need another operator to expression inclusion, or we need to > > assume that specific meaning of &&. > > > > For what I wanted to express in the example above, || seem be the > > right choice: -e inst*@(..lock:*acquire(B) || lock:*release(B)..) > > > > So || would mean union and && would mean inclusion. > > Hmm, would we really need that kind of complex rules? > It seems that we only need union case. If so, I'd suggest > you to use ',' to express that, instead of ||. > > -e inst*@(..lock:*acquire(B),lock:*release(B)..) Yeah, I somehow was avoiding the comma operator because it could be used to represent multiple events, but then its a different context, using it to represent a circular list of ranges in the @ (at, location) expression seems ok. 1. '..lock:*acquire(B)' is armed, 'lock:*release(B)..' isn't 2. '..lock:*acquire(B)' trigers, which causes 'lock:*release(B)..' to be armed 3. 'lock:*release(B)..' triggers, which causes '..lock:*acquire(B)' to be armed, rinse, repeat - Arnaldo -- 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/