Re: [PATCH V5 02/10] perf/amd/iommu: Consolidate and move perf_event_amd_iommu header

[Suravee Suthikulpanit]

Hi,

On 3/14/16 16:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:26:00PM +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 03/12/2016 08:22 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:12:36AM -0600, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > > > From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > First, this patch move arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h to
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h so that we easily include
> > > > it in both perf-amd-iommu and amd-iommu drivers.
> > > >
> > > > Then, we consolidate declaration of AMD IOMMU performance counter
> > > > APIs into one file.
> > >
> > > These seem two independent thingies; should this therefore not be 2
> > > patches?
> > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.c           |  2 +-
> > > >   arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h           | 40 ---------------------------------
> > > >   arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > That seems somewhat excessive. Not only do you create
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/perf/ you then put another directory on top of
> > > that.
> >
> > The original header files (arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.h and
> > drivers/iommu/amd_iommu_proto.h) has duplicate function declarations. So,
> > with the new header file being in the arch/x86/include/asm/perf/amd/iommu.h,
> > we can just have one function declaration.
> >
> > So, you just want to separate the file moving part and the part that removes
> > of the duplication?
>
> I'm fine with a new header, it just seems putting it in a two deep
> direcotry hierarchy of its own that seems excessive.

Basically, we are trying to match the current Perf hierarchy for AMD 
IOMMU (arch/x86/events/amd/iommu.c). I can put it into 
arch/x86/include/asm/perf_amd_iommu.h. What would you prefer?

Thanks,
Suravee