From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] perf: implement pmu perf_kprobe
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 15:41:40 +0100
Message-ID: <20171204144140.xdpm6vmtdek4fjzb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171130235023.1414663-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
 <20171130235023.1414663-6-songliubraving@fb.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, kernel-team@fb.com
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171130235023.1414663-6-songliubraving@fb.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 03:50:20PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:

> +static struct pmu perf_kprobe = {

> +};

> +static inline bool perf_event_is_tracing(struct perf_event *event)
> +{
> +	return event->attr.type == PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT ||
> +		strncmp(event->pmu->name, "kprobe", 6) == 0;

Why a strcmp here? Wouldn't something like:

	event->pmu == &perf_kprobe

work much simpler?

> +}