Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 May 2011 16:31:52 +0200 | From | Frederic Weisbecker <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code |
| |
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 :)
| |