<bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx> From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <79BCBAF7-BF5F-4556-A923-56E9D82FB570@xxxxxxxxx> On May 15, 2020 4:42:46 PM GMT-03:00, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:01 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo ><arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Em Fri, May 15, 2020 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Ian Rogers escreveu: >> > Perf's expr code currently builds an array of strings then removes >> > duplicates. The array is larger than necessary and has recently >been >> > increased in size. When this was done it was commented that a >hashmap >> > would be preferable. >> > >> > libbpf has a hashmap but libbpf isn't currently required to build >> > perf. To satisfy various concerns this change copies libbpf's >hashmap >> > into tools/perf/util, it then adds a check in perf that the two are >in >> > sync. >> > >> > Andrii's patch to hashmap from bpf-next is brought into this set to >> > fix issues with hashmap__clear. >> > >> > Two minor changes to libbpf's hashmap are made that remove an >unused >> > dependency and fix a compiler warning. >> >> Andrii/Alexei/Daniel, what do you think about me merging these fixes >in my >> perf-tools-next branch? > >I'm ok with the idea, but it's up to maintainers to coordinate this :) Good to know, do I'll take all patches except the ones touching libppf, will just make sure the copy is done with the patches applied. At some point they'll land in libbpf and the warning from check_headers.sh will be resolved. Thanks, - Arnaldo -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
