From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FBCC3F2C6 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:29:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FA820842 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:29:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729614AbgCCS3F (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:29:05 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:45133 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727311AbgCCS3F (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Mar 2020 13:29:05 -0500 Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1j9CHl-0003Rq-VG; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:28:54 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BEA38104098; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 19:28:52 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Davidlohr Bueso , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Adrian Hunter , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf bench: Share 'start', 'end', 'runtime' global vars In-Reply-To: <20200303155811.GD13702@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 19:28:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87eeu92syj.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo writes: >> > Don't we have header files for that? > >> Sure, that was the laziest/quickest way to "fix" that, the other was to >> stick a 'static' in front of it. > >> I'll go see if pushing them to a header file will not clash with other >> stuff. > > Better now? Had to prefix those, not to clash with local variables when > adding it to bench/bench.h. Yes. > Looking at the patch more can be done to share those benchmark > arguments, but this is the second minimal patch to get tools/perf to > build with the latest gcc (the one in Fedora rawhide and some other > distros). Right, but yes there is definitely quite some overlap there. Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner