On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:50:26PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 06.10.10 09:30:41, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 03:18:25PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > > So, I am also fine with implementing a generic perf_pmu_name() for sh > > > and then derive the oprofile cpu_type string from it in the oprofile > > > code. > > > > > Again, this is unacceptable. > > Paul, > > maybe I misunderstood you, but isn't this you preferred solution? We > make perf_pmu_name() part of the generic i/f and then derive the > oprofile name from the pmu name provided by perf. > Perhaps we've misunderstood each other. I thought what you meant is that we would carry a special API deviation in the architecture code or expose the sh_pmu structure to generic code, both of which I have no interest in. My preferred solution is that we provide a perf_pmu_name() in the generic perf code as a __weak and then override it in the sh code, where we have sh_pmu visibility. This way we aren't providing any special APIs and sh_pmu remains constrained to the sh perf events code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
