Em Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 08:52:08PM +0100, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:14:17PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 06:05:20PM -0800, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > +static int remove_loops(struct branch_entry *l, int nr)
> > > +{
> > > + int i, j, off;
> > > + unsigned char chash[CHASHSZ];
> > > +
> > > + memset(chash, NO_ENTRY, sizeof(chash));
> > > +
> > > + BUG_ON(nr >= 256);
> >
> > What is wrong with return -1 and propagating the error, so that the user
> > is informed if the data being processed is bogus, stop processing with a
> > warning or continue processing if finding the next valid record is
> > possible?
>
> The error doesn't depend on the record. There is a check for the record
> being < 127 in front of this. This is merely to catch that
> if someone increases PERF_MAX_BRANCH_DEPTH to below 255 they need
> to increase the type of the hash table from u8.
Ok, so this would be better as a BUILD_BUG_ON?
Like:
#define CHASHSZ 127
#define CHASHBITS 7
#define NO_ENTRY 0xff
#define PERF_MAX_BRANCH_DEPTH 127
/* Remove loops. */
static int remove_loops(struct branch_entry *l, int nr)
{
int i, j, off;
unsigned char chash[CHASHSZ];
memset(chash, NO_ENTRY, sizeof(chash));
/* Change the type of the chash table, u8 is not enough now */
BUILD_BUG_ON(PERF_MAX_BRANCH_DEPTH >= 256);
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
int h = hash_64(l[i].from, CHASHBITS) % CHASHSZ;
-------------------------------------
- Arnaldo
--
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/
