From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753974AbaEFSu5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 14:50:57 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:47779 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751486AbaEFSu4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 14:50:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 20:50:50 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Robert Richter Cc: Jean Pihet , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tomasz Nowicki Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] perf, persistent: Add persistent events Message-ID: <20140506185050.GD25013@pd.tnic> References: <1396883078-25320-1-git-send-email-jean.pihet@linaro.org> <20140506123907.GV32718@rric.localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140506123907.GV32718@rric.localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 02:39:07PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > Creation of events basically does (function arguments are a bit pseudo > code): > > attr.type = pmu_type; > attr.config = event_config; > event = perf_event_open(attr, cpu, ...); > id = ioctl(event, PERF_EVENT_IOC_UNCLAIM, 0); Remind me again pls why we decided for the CLAIM/UNCLAIM part? It is very unintuitive. What was against we detach from the event (we're implicitly attached to it in the normal case, when it is not persistent) and then reattach? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --