On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:33:23AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> > @@ -80,7 +519,7 @@ static int random_event_type(void)
> >
> > int type;
> >
> > - switch (rand() % 6) {
> > + switch (rand() % 8) {
> > case 0:
> > type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE;
> > break;
> > @@ -99,6 +538,9 @@ static int random_event_type(void)
> > case 5:
> > type = PERF_TYPE_BREAKPOINT;
> > break;
> > + case 6:
> > + type = PERF_TYPE_READ_FROM_SYSFS;
> > + break;
> > default:
> > type = rand();
> > break;
>
> is 8 correct here ? not 7 ?
If you pick 7 then the default case never gets called, correct?
I think that's a minor bug in the existing implementation, the default
case was never called.
Perhaps proper coding convention would be to have the
make-the-type-field-completely-random case be an explicit value and use
the default case only for error handling.
I should also maybe have the completely-random case be
"completely radom but with preference to values < 256" as that's more
likely to trigger actual valid types.
Vince
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
