On 22 August 2016 at 10:40, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shish...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> +enum {
>> + ETM_TOKEN_SINK_CPU,
>> + ETM_TOKEN_SINK,
>> + ETM_TOKEN_ERR,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const match_table_t drv_cfg_tokens = {
>> + {ETM_TOKEN_SINK_CPU, "sink=cpu%d:%s"},
>> + {ETM_TOKEN_SINK, "sink=%s"},
>> + {ETM_TOKEN_ERR, NULL},
>> +};
>
> Wait, but we just parsed away the '=' and the whole thing is now a
> linked list of { key, value }?
You're correct. From a parsing point of view it was better to
reassemble the string and parse the whole thing again. As suggested
in my previous email if the parsing for "sink=xyz" is done in the
core we won't have to do this part.
>
> This also answers my question from the other email about the use cases
> for sending in ascii strings. In my opinion, all this is completely
> unnecessary.
>
>> +static int
>> +etm_set_drv_configs(struct perf_event *event,
>> + struct list_head *drv_configs)
>> +{
>> + char *config, *sink;
>> + int len;
>> + struct perf_drv_config *drv_config;
>> + void *old_sink;
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(drv_config, drv_configs, entry) {
>> + /* ETM HW configuration needs a sink specification */
>> + if (!drv_config->option)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + len = strlen(drv_config->config) + strlen("=") +
>> + strlen(drv_config->option) + 1;
>> +
>> + config = kmalloc(len, GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!config)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + /* Reconstruct user configuration */
>> + snprintf(config, len, "%s=%s",
>> + drv_config->config, drv_config->option);
>
> Wait, what? We parse this *twice*?
>
> There's basically a malloc+snprintf[which could have been
> kasprintf()]+match_token just to see if drv_config::option starts with a
> 'cpu%d:'?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alex
