On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:25:25AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:36:38AM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:24:49AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > > On 07/22/2014 10:09 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 04:17:22PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > SNIP
> > > >
> > > >> +
> > > >> +static FILE *perf_pmu__open_file(struct perf_pmu *pmu, const char
> > > >> *name)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> + struct stat st;
> > > >> + char path[PATH_MAX];
> > > >> + const char *sysfs;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + sysfs = sysfs__mountpoint();
> > > >> + if (!sysfs)
> > > >> + return NULL;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX,
> > > >> + "%s" EVENT_SOURCE_DEVICE_PATH "%s/%s", sysfs,
> > > >> pmu->name, name);
> > > >> +
> > > >> + if (stat(path, &st) < 0)
> > > >> + return NULL;
> > > >> +
> > > >> + return fopen(path, "r");
> > > >> +}
> > > >
> > > > looks like this function could be used in pmu_cpumask and pmu_type
> > > > and maybe others
> > >
> > > There is existing code duplication between them. Given the large number
> > > of
> > > patches I would say it is easier to deal with that separately.
> >
> > ook, jirka
>
> Is this an Acked-by: jirka?
well, while perf_pmu__open_file would be handy now, perf_pmu__scan_file
does now have any callers in the patchset..
I'm not sure whats our current policy one this ;-) as I've seen more
functions like this over this patchset, I think we should not introduce
new interface without caller
jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
