Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:48:55 -0300 | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf pmu: Fix event list for uncore PMUs |
| |
Em Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:14:42AM +0000, John Garry escreveu: > On 21/12/2021 09:35, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 09:10:37AM +0000, John Garry wrote: > > > On 21/12/2021 07:58, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > > + /* Different names -> never duplicates */ > > > > > + if (strcmp(alias_a->name, alias_b->name)) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (!alias_a->pmu) > > > > > + return true; > > > > > + if (!alias_b->pmu) > > > > > + return true; > > > > nit could be: > > > > > > > > if (!alias_a->pmu || !alias_b->pmu) > > > > return true; > > > > > > > > would be great to have more comments explaining the check > > > > > > > > > > This is just a sanity check that both strings are non-NULL as we do a > > > strcmp() next. So would this be better: > > > > > > if (!alias_a->pmu || !alias_b->pmu || !strcmp(alias_a->pmu, alias_b->pmu)) > > > return true > > > > > > ? > > > > > > It will spill a line. > > > > sure, it cought my eye because the is_cpu check later is done on > > the same line, so I started wondering what's the difference ;-) > > > > Now thinking a bit more I am not confident that this patch is a full fix. > > arm have heterogeneous CPU systems as well - which are not "hybrid" - and I > need to ensure that aliasing is still working properly there, as I think > that this following check would stop removing duplicates there: > > + /* uncore PMUs */ > + if (!alias_a->is_cpu && !alias_b->is_cpu) > + return true; > + return false;
I was about to process this, do you think its better to revert the original patch while this gets fixed?
- Arnaldo
| |