Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] perf: Add persistent event facilities

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 06:13:58PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > -static void ring_buffer_put(struct ring_buffer *rb)
> > +void perf_ring_buffer_put(struct ring_buffer *rb)
> 
> Why did you rename this function?

Yeah, actually that's not needed.

However, the perf ring buffer function naming is kinda inconsistent:

ring_buffer_*
rb_*

Since we're keeping those internal to perf, they maybe should have the
same prefix, no?

I vote for "rb_" because it is shorter. :)

> > + err_event_file:
> > +	perf_event_release_kernel(event);
> 
> It needs to reset event to ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) ?

Yeah, the error path in this function is kinda clumsy, I'll do some more
staring at how to make it simpler/better.

[ … ]

> > +	__list_del(desc->plist.prev, desc->plist.next);
> 
> Why not using list_del(&desc->plist) ?

Will do.

[ … ]

> > + err_event_file:
> > +	put_unused_fd(event_fd);
>
> Isn't it safe to have event_fd of -1 in case not found? Anyway, if
> it's returned to the user space directly, it's better having more
> meaningful error code IMHO.

Yeah, I rewrote that one in the meantime to use a helper and it is
cleaner now.

Thanks for the review!

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--