Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code

[Borislav Petkov]

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!

It is only natural since it is your code, only you know exactly what
you want to do with it, how to split, what to export and before we do
a couple of iterations back and forth of me sending patches and you
suggesting what needs to be changed, we could save us a bunch of trouble
and time if you did the split the "right" way :).

Btw, feel free to reuse any of my stuff if you feel like it.

P.S. Sorry for the bouncy ML, we're fixing it.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Registration: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/