Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757795Ab1ELOb7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 10:31:59 -0400 Received: from mail-yi0-f46.google.com ([209.85.218.46]:53913 "EHLO mail-yi0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754630Ab1ELOb5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2011 10:31:57 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=G6W7TuMCq0b3X9q7lQNiz+FlXYJ1ZuiAGjAywD+sLLebqEJhh97oM5FkXVsMD3ZSmt yFcWVmwsOxGKlwrizzVCepH60ioKnfPt2ooepaCtY3ELfAU+lerAUW/4eIfpvMYaTcsb 1ke6EgNVyG4BzEu5vU89PgHxd3i6/ZOb1TFb8= Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:31:52 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code Message-ID: <20110512143148.GB7410@nowhere> References: <20110511121135.GA25865@aftab> <1305121600.2914.214.camel@laptop> <20110511140208.GD25827@aftab> <20110511141342.GA19053@elte.hu> <20110511143149.GA26548@aftab> <20110511152156.GA21707@elte.hu> <20110511170912.GA27362@aftab> <1305190277.2914.259.camel@laptop> <20110512101839.GA17731@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110512101839.GA17731@aftab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3511 Lines: 83 On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:18:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:51:17AM -0400, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 19:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > I can't really say I like this move stuff into perf_event.h and then > > move it out again dance. Makes it exceedingly hard for me to tell wth > > actually happened. > > > > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 132 -------------------------------------------- > > > > Compared with: > > > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 126 +++++++++++- > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 7 +- > > > > Its very hard to tell if this undoes the exact damage you did earlier. > > The right thing to do would be to redo the patches again with internal.h > in mind. > > > > kernel/events/callchain.c | 3 + > > > kernel/events/cgroup.c | 2 + > > > kernel/events/core.c | 2 + > > > kernel/events/internal.h | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 kernel/events/internal.h > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > index 7978850..6b25452 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ enum event_type_t { > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS > > > extern struct list_head pmus; > > > extern int perf_pmu_register(struct pmu *pmu, char *name, int type); > > > -extern void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu); > > > > That just doesn't make any sense. If we publish one side of the API we > > should also publish the other side. > > Fair enough. It was unused, therefore I removed it. > > > > extern int perf_num_counters(void); > > > extern const char *perf_pmu_name(void); > > > @@ -985,8 +984,6 @@ perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct perf_event_attr *attr, > > > int cpu, > > > struct task_struct *task, > > > perf_overflow_handler_t callback); > > > -extern u64 perf_event_read_value(struct perf_event *event, > > > - u64 *enabled, u64 *running); > > > > While not used, that is a valid part of the API. > > Yep, ditto. > > > > > > > struct perf_sample_data { > > > u64 type; > > > @@ -1152,60 +1149,10 @@ extern int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle, > > > struct perf_event *event, unsigned int size, > > > int nmi, int sample); > > > extern void perf_output_end(struct perf_output_handle *handle); > > > -extern void perf_output_copy(struct perf_output_handle *handle, > > > - const void *buf, unsigned int len); > > > > idem > > > > > extern int perf_swevent_get_recursion_context(void); > > > -extern void perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(int rctx); > > > > Again, creating asymmetry. > > Ok, I won't be able to redo the patches before Mo. due to travel. Also, > I think that you should do the splitting, as I suggested so at the > beginning! I can take it if you want. I'm currently splitting the buffer part so I can try to relay the rest as well :) -- 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/