"stephane eranian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/05/2008 02:23:15 PM: [snip] > If I summarize our discussion. It seems we can define the API as follows: > > int pfm_create_session(int fd, uint64_t flags, pfarg_sinfo_t *sif, > [ char *smpl_name, void *smpl_arg, size_t arg_size]); > int pfm_read_pmrs(int fd, uint64_t flags, void *tab, size_t sz); > int pfm_write_pmrs(int fd, uint64_t flags, void *tab, size_t sz); > int pfm_attach_session(int fd, uint64_t flags, int target); /* > attach, detach with target=-1 */ > int pfm_control_session(int fd, uint64_t flags); /* for start/stop */ > int pfm_control_sets(int fd, uint64_t flags, void *sets, size_t sz); > > Does this look reasonable?
Just as a general comment to this revision, I think this has gone too far toward an ioctl call; I prefer stronger type checking at the API. This has almost none. Also, it's more self-documenting if the type that you need to pass is explicit in the prototype. That said, if most of the LKML folks are fine with it, so am I. 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
