From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754466AbaIKNhW (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:37:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:19529 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751038AbaIKNhV (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:37:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:37:11 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: "Liang, Kan" Cc: "acme@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ak@linux.intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 2/3] perf tools: parse the pmu event prefix and surfix Message-ID: <20140911133711.GB26389@krava.brq.redhat.com> References: <1410371732-1185-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <1410371732-1185-2-git-send-email-kan.liang@intel.com> <20140911084659.GA7326@krava.brq.redhat.com> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077015C6DF9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077015C6DF9@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> 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 Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 01:31:48PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static int > > > +comp_pmu(const void *p1, const void *p2) { > > > + struct perf_pmu_event_symbol *pmu1 = > > > + (struct perf_pmu_event_symbol *) p1; > > > + struct perf_pmu_event_symbol *pmu2 = > > > + (struct perf_pmu_event_symbol *) p2; > > > + > > > + return strcmp(pmu1->symbol, pmu2->symbol); } > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Read the pmu events list from sysfs > > > + * Save it into perf_pmu_events_list > > > + */ > > > +static void perf_pmu__parse_init(void) { > > > + > > > + struct perf_pmu *pmu = NULL; > > > + struct perf_pmu_alias *alias; > > > + int len = 0; > > > + > > > > missing my previous comment being addressed: > > > > I just found it in Junk E-mail. I have no idea why. :( > > > --- > > Why do we need to call scan here? Looks like: > > pmu = pmu_lookup("cpu") > > > > should be enough.. and could be used below as well > > --- > > > > Could we use "perf_pmu__find" here? > pmu_lookup is a static function. > Also, it looks we don't need to lookup all the time if the PMU is loaded. right, perf_pmu__find seems better thanks, jirka