From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B35C3C6BA; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:22:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730762534; cv=none; b=c9bE6nQ4W2OFLwmKThvUcVer88l7OylgAZP6fV4B31dXkN0lQHh8AzA0F/3LZp8s+GSpdV7q7aj4YRBmueiSbTi7sIy0h8c/cJzXV/6/7lp6nUwkTLaU9gzz/omDnmy/HfjbOL/+TqH8uMaCXEm8ljwaTscsW08iZyil+qZ5A2Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730762534; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GdJwSfKUqTDy07ce4q/7vwI85c4xMt3VIdX6qK2UUI4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CPjcd/Fz1ZuHUIULJnim4x5+yN35MIzhvFEcq/umJ+o+huPeeaCwNKN/QvXGOGn8+JgB6k+4YX/FhEtotRzDx6jvi8vXMV4c5DcP8c0iz8jaF/+ALWrMsa1i8uXLz6JW8/tqQubf52FWAMExAC2JRxTbNQc400MPcvrXFpYrf9w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=h5JG2yRA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="h5JG2yRA" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00050C4CECE; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:22:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730762533; bh=GdJwSfKUqTDy07ce4q/7vwI85c4xMt3VIdX6qK2UUI4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=h5JG2yRAe/OPI8CFWltbrblYdIokgfpSTpOjJJYPocHI8dEuus9LmXhrIGA7KRgzu mT+c+CRZqFjbxgDoBzTGDX9t5E18icQqjLayat60YxQQGEhwf/2za9qv4ur3ynm1rB UpSOq5UuQvGKT2MKJCVxaI/P0Opkg1Xp8wNllF+qbb3kUNJNCEYEJlDRYCf9rdVKI4 yGvLzmFf57iq0I2iZoYK729awiaYmN4sseESk7VRWLltJ3F8XQVLMzZljtLs3btOv7 4+fN0z8YnN2tNZM+ChiCmyFPXMpMIKmh1LdoXG+wqdbPbaVFuW70ylZ42OCyKByw8b Yc72YW0DsHCzg== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:22:11 -0800 From: Namhyung Kim To: Ian Rogers Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Adrian Hunter , Kan Liang , James Clark , Howard Chu , Athira Jajeev , Michael Petlan , Veronika Molnarova , Dapeng Mi , Thomas Richter , Ilya Leoshkevich , Colin Ian King , Weilin Wang , Andi Kleen , Josh Poimboeuf , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/21] perf script: Move find_scripts to browser/scripts.c Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:09 PM Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 01:06:35PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 1:00 PM Namhyung Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:48:01PM -0800, Ian Rogers wrote: > > > > > Namhyung was asking that the c&p of code be 1 patch then "add new > > > > > changes like using openat() on top". That is: > > > > > > > > > > patch 1: add is_directory_at - introduce the 2 line helper function > > > > > patch 2: move the code > > > > > patch 3: update the code to use is_directory_at > > > > > > > > > > patch 2 is known broken as patch 3 is fixing it. > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this is clear. > > > > > > > > Actually I don't care about the patch ordering. My request is not > > > > to break build and just to separate different changes out. :) > > > > > > So, patch 2 can't be separated from patch 3 - are we agreed? So we > > > squash patch 2 with patch 3. Patch 1 is trivial and fails to meet the > > > bar of a meaningful change, so we squash that. We end up with this > > > patch. If there's a later revert and a dependence of the 2 liner, just > > > don't revert that part of the change. We've never had such a revert so > > > it is hard to see why we need to generate so much churn because of it. > > > > As I said the patch 1 should be the c&p and no need to introduce > > is_directory_at() before that. Why not doing > > > > patch1: move the code > > patch2: add and use is_directory_at() + openat() > > > > ? > > Because placing all the code in 1 file expands GCC's analysis and the > build fails. In the commit message I describe this: > "The arrays are warned about potential buffer overflows by GCC now > that all the code exists in a single C file." > A standard unsound workaround to this is to change "sizeof(...)" to > "sizeof(...) - 1", as it is ugly I added is_directory_at to not suffer > the problem as the arrays are gone. Ok, it's strange that this type of analysis depends on the placement. Anyway it seems there's a problem in the code already. Then we can fix it first and then move. How about this? patch1: add and use is_directory_at() + openat() patch2: move the code Thanks, Namhyung