Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf_event: cleanup for event profile buffer operation

[Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:21:46AM -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>>> Hmm, could you make it inline-functions or add __kprobes?
>>> Because it is called from kprobes, we don't want to probe
>>> the function which will be called from kprobes handlers itself.
>>>
>>> (IMHO, from the viewpoint of performance, inline-function
>>>  could be better.)
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Yeah, may be inline ftrace_profile_buf_end, would be better.
>> But we shouldn't inline ftrace_profile_buf_begin() I guess,
>> considering its size.
> 
> Indeed, especially for events...
> 

Thanks Masami and Frederic, i'll fix it in the next version

>> While at it, may be let's choose more verbose names
>> like
>>
>> ftrace_profile_buf_fill() and ftrace_profile_buf_submit().
>>
>> Also, profile is a bit of a misnomer. Not a problem since
>> ftrace_profile_templ_##call() is already a misnomer, but
>> we should start a bit of a rename. Sometimes, perf only
>> profiles trace events as counters and sometimes it records
>> the raw samples too.
>>
>> So, as more generic names, I would suggest:
>>
>> ftrace_perf_buf_fill() and ftrace_perf_buf_submit().
> 
> 
> Actual filling buffer is done in the profile handlers,
> so I think ftrace_perf_buf_prepare() may be better :-)
> ftrace_perf_buf_submit is good to me:-)
> 

OK, i'll rename those functions and add __kprobe for ftrace_perf_buf_prepare(),
i guess i can add you Acked-by :-)

Thanks,
Xiao