Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:44:42 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 04/10] perf machine: Introduce synthesize_threads method out of open coded equivalent |
| |
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net> wrote:
> Em Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 09:50:45PM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu: > > * David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 11/11/13, 1:22 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > >+ if (perf_target__has_task(target)) > > > >+ return perf_event__synthesize_thread_map(tool, threads, process, machine, data_mmap); > > > >+ else if (perf_target__has_cpu(target)) > > > >+ return perf_event__synthesize_threads(tool, process, machine, data_mmap); > > > > Getting kind of long on the line lengths... > > > Maybe we could start losing most of the perf_ prefixes - it's all about > > perf here, so it does not really add much information, does it? > > In some cases that is ok, that is why I didn't call it 'perf_machine', > just 'machine', in others, like 'perf_event', I thought 'event' would be > too general when somebody tries to use this code together with other > libraries.
I think 'event' as a variable name is generally unused by libraries, exactly because so much random code uses it.
The only unfortunate C library land grabs I've run into are 'time' [by glibc] and 'y0' [by libm].
What I was suggesting here was more like an event__*() namespace - there shouldn't be any collision with public functions from libraries, public functions are generally either well established, or prefixed with a library name.
These are perf-internal function names, so using event__*() should be fine - assuming there are no counter arguments.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |