"stephane eranian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/02/2008 08:20:14
AM:
[snip]
> int pfm_create_session(int flags, pfarg_session_info_t *sif,
> [char *smpl_name, void *smpl_arg, size_t
arg_size]);
>
> With:
>
> typedef struct {
> u64 sif_avail_pmcs[PFM_PMC_BV];
> u64 sif_avail_pmds[PFM_PMD_BV];
> u64 sif_reserved[4];
> } pfarg_session_info_t;
>
> The structure could later be extended to return other information
> about the session. That is why I did
> not call it pfarg_pmrinfo_t.
>
> Of course, the corresponding bitmask are removed from
> pfarg_setinfo_t to avoid duplication.
> The new structure is renamed, pfarg_set_info_t, to avoid conflicts
^^^
I assume you meant pfrg_session_info_t here?
> with v2.81 definition and allow emulation. It is
> important that we find a way to support existing v2.81 applications
> despite this change. That
> means that the emulation of pfm_getinfo_evtsets() now needs to
> create a fake context to
> retrieve the bitmasks and copy them back info the old
> pfarg_setinfo_t structure.
>
> If you have better names for those info structures, please let me know.
>
This looks like a good idea, Stephane. As for the name, I think that one
is fine, as it would allow you to add some information later that is not
restricted to register availability bit masks.
Regards,
- Corey
Corey Ashford
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center, Linux Toolchain
Beaverton, OR
503-578-3507
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
perfmon2-devel mailing list
perfmon2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/perfmon2-devel
