Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND v1 02/11] perf mem: Introduce weak function perf_mem_events__ptr() | From | James Clark <> | Date | Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:40:29 +0100 |
| |
Hi Leo,
On 06/08/2020 04:07, Leo Yan wrote: > > for (j = 0; j < PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX; j++) { > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].record) > + e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j); > + if (!e->record) > continue; > > - if (!perf_mem_events[j].supported) { > + if (!e->supported) { > pr_err("failed: event '%s' not supported\n", > - perf_mem_events[j].name); > + perf_mem_events__name(j)); > free(rec_argv); > return -1;
Does it make sense to do something like:
for(j = 0; e = perf_mem_events__ptr(j); j++) { ... }
now that it's a weak function that returns NULL when the argument out of range. That way the caller doesn't need to know about PERF_MEM_EVENTS__MAX as well and it could potentially be a different value. I don't know if it would ever make sense to have a different number of events on different platforms?
James
| |