On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 02:58:02PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > This patch adds a new fields to the struct perf_event. > > > It is intended to be used to chain events which are > > > active (enabled). It helps in the hardware layer > > > for PMU which do not have actual counter restrictions, i.e., > > > free running read-only counters. Active events are chained > > > as opposed to being tracked via the counter they use. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eran...@google.com> > > > --- > > > include/linux/perf_event.h | 1 + > > > kernel/events/core.c | 1 + > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > index 2e069d1..a376384 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h > > > @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ struct perf_event { > > > struct perf_cgroup *cgrp; /* cgroup event is attach to > > > */ > > > int cgrp_defer_enabled; > > > #endif > > > + struct list_head active_entry; > > > > Could this be in union with 'hlist_entry' ? It looks > > as 'same purpose' and 'mutualy exclusive stuff. > > > You're saying that I could use the hlist_entry field because > it is currently only used by the sw events in the generic layer. > But it seems to be a complicated rcu list for the purpose here.
nope, I just meant saving little space like: union { struct list_head active_entry; struct hlist_node hlist_entry; } just a nitpick jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/