Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 02/10] perf/amd/iommu: Consolidate and move perf_event_amd_iommu header | From | Suravee Suthikulpanit <> | Date | Mon, 14 Mar 2016 20:37:02 +0700 |
| |
Hi,
On 3/14/16 16:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:26:00PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/12/2016 08:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:12:36AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: >>>> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> >>>> >>>> First, this patch move arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h to >>>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h so that we easily include >>>> it in both perf-amd-iommu and amd-iommu drivers. >>>> >>>> Then, we consolidate declaration of AMD IOMMU performance counter >>>> APIs into one file. >>> >>> These seem two independent thingies; should this therefore not be 2 >>> patches? >>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de> >>>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.c | 2 +- >>>> arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h | 40 --------------------------------- >>>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> That seems somewhat excessive. Not only do you create >>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf/ you then put another directory on top of >>> that. >>> >> >> The original header files (arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h and >> drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_proto.h) has duplicate function declarations. So, >> with the new header file being in the arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h, >> we can just have one function declaration. >> >> So, you just want to separate the file moving part and the part that removes >> of the duplication? > > I'm fine with a new header, it just seems putting it in a two deep > direcotry hierarchy of its own that seems excessive. >
Basically, we are trying to match the current Perf hierarchy for AMD IOMMU (arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.c). I can put it into arch/x86/include/asm/perf_amd_iommu.h. What would you prefer?
Thanks, Suravee
| |