On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:19 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
quoted text
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 14:01 +0100, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> >> Hello Peter,
> >> 
> >> I'm looking at the perf event stuff and wondering if
> >
> >> perf_event_refresh() should be limited to sampling events.
> >> 
> >> Does the following make sense ?
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> index 3b105e0..1a90a6c 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> >> @@ -1072,7 +1072,7 @@ static int perf_event_refresh(struct perf_event *event, int refresh)
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * not supported on inherited events
> >>  	 */
> >> -	if (event->attr.inherit)
> >> +	if (event->attr.inherit || !event->attr.sample_period)
> >>  		return -EINVAL;
> >>  
> >>  	atomic_add(refresh, &event->event_limit);
> >
> > Yes it does, please submit as a proper patch.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I'm also wondering if you would accept a second patch which will
> introduce:
> 
> static inline bool is_sampling_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
>         return event->attr.sample_period != 0;
> }
> 
> That would make the code slighlty easier to read IMHO.
> 

Sure, Francis might want that too, he found another something like this.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/