On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:36:16PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
SNIP
> > > + int n = 0;
> > > +
> > > + list_for_each(pos, list)
> > > + n++;
> > > +
> > > + return n;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int parse_events__with_hybrid_pmu(struct parse_events_state
> > > *parse_state,
> > > + const char *str, char *pmu_name,
> > > + bool *found, struct list_head *list)
> > > +{
> > > + struct parse_events_state ps = {
> > > + .list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(ps.list),
> > > + .stoken = PE_START_EVENTS,
> > > + .pmu_name = pmu_name,
> > > + .idx = parse_state->idx,
> > > + };
> >
> > could we add this pmu_name directly to __parse_events?
> >
>
> Do you suggest we directly call __parse_events()?
>
> int __parse_events(struct evlist *evlist, const char *str,
> struct parse_events_error *err, struct perf_pmu *fake_pmu)
>
> struct parse_events_state parse_state = {
> .list = LIST_HEAD_INIT(parse_state.list),
> .idx = evlist->core.nr_entries,
> .error = err,
> .evlist = evlist,
> .stoken = PE_START_EVENTS,
> .fake_pmu = fake_pmu,
> };
>
> But for parse_events__with_hybrid_pmu, we don't have valid evlist. So if we
> switch to __parse_events, evlist processing may be a problem.
you should use parse_state->evlist no? but we can chec/make this
change in next itaration.. it's already lot of changes
jirka
