Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support forIntel processors

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +struct evt_cstr {
> +	unsigned long	idxmsk[BITS_TO_LONGS(X86_PMC_IDX_MAX)];
> +	int		code;
> +};
> +
> +#define EVT_CSTR0(c, m) { .code = (c), .idxmsk[0] = (m) }
> +#define EVT_CSTR_END  { .code = 0, .idxmsk[0] = 0 }
> +
> +#define for_each_evt_cstr(e, c) \
> +	for((e) = (c); (e)->idxmsk[0]; (e)++)

Nice patch - but the naming here absolutely sucked, so i changed 
evt_cstr, idxmsk, CSTR, etc. to something more palatable. Field names 
and abstractions in Linux code really need to be meaningful, and the 
code has to be readable and understandable. Wdntusabbrntslkthtinlnx :)

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/