Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:22:59 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Add persistent events |
| |
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org> Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:02:01PM -0400
> Em Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:24:26PM +0200, Borislav Petkov escreveu: > > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org> > > > One thing I thought was that perhaps reusing Kbuild would be a good > > > idea, something like: > > > > > > cd tools/ > > > make menuconfig > > > > > > And use all the Kbuild machinery to select needed features, etc. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Why not, however, do we need it at this point? I mean, you simply do > > > > make -j; make install > > > > in tools/perf/ and all is good. It even tells you if some libraries are > > missing. I simply don't see such a large amount of options to justify > > a configurator but maybe there are usecases where Kconfig would make > > sense, hmmm? > > Yeah, I mean longer term, as we get libraries separated, more benchmarks, > tools, etc.
Sure, this is generally a good idea.
> > > > It can be a follow up to what you're doing, that is needed anyway, some > > > questions below: > > > > > tools/lib/util/util.h | 282 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Will we continue using "util" here? What other name could we pick? Nah, > > > probably for the ones you moved we can continue using it, the symbols > > > part I plan to move to tools/lib/symbol/. > > > Yeah, names are kinda arbitrary. Keeping "util" meant as little changes as > > possible but it would make more sense to simply have all different library > > modules under "tools/lib/<module>.(c|h)" Will do so in the next version. > > Ok > > > > > tools/perf/builtin-bench.c | 2 +- > > > > tools/perf/builtin.h | 4 +- > > > > > > > -#include "types.h" > > > > +#include <util/types.h> > > > > > > I thought about suggesting using -I to reduce patch size, but then it is > > > using "" :-\ > > > > Yeah, I have the -I$(CURDIR)/lib for this in the top level Makefile so all > > library includes would be like: > > > > #include <util.h> > > > > however, this does not differentiate perflib (let's call it that for how > > :) from libc headers. Do we want a "perf" or "kernel" or "perflib" or > > whatever prefix here - it might make sense later when this thing grows > > to differentiate between the namespaces...? > > Agreed, but the last name this thing will have will be 'perf'something :-) > > One of the goals at least I have with pursuing this path is to separate > out everything that is not strictly 'perf' into things that can be reused > by other tools, like yours.
Ok, since I'm a big fan of unambiguous short names, let's call it "lk" for "linux kernel" and have this namespace for all generic headers. So when you include those, you have something like
#include <lk/util.h>
How does that sound?
> > > So I'll do some testing here and merge this for .36 unless somebody has > > > other issues with this, Ingo? Frédéric? > > > Can you please wait a bit with the merging, I'd like to write the > > whole rasd daemon stuff before we merge that and have the generic lib > > carve-out in one patchset? > > Ok with me, I'll see if I manage to do the symbols part tho, as it is > kinda self contained and I already toyed with writing a test program > that uses the subset of tools/perf/util/ that deals with symbols.
Neat, let's sync when I got my stuff ready so that we merge it together and fixup any paths fallout that might happen.
Thanks.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Operating Systems Research Center Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- 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/
| |