From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933885AbbLPH4B (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:56:01 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43190 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933720AbbLPHz7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 02:55:59 -0500
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:55:52 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@huawei.com>
Cc: acme@kernel.org, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pi3orama@163.com, lizefan@huawei.com,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] perf tools: Enable indices setting syntax for
 BPF maps
Message-ID: <20151216075552.GA20341@krava.local>
References: <1450089563-122430-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
 <1450089563-122430-11-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
 <20151215134219.GC31734@krava.brq.redhat.com>
 <5670C634.9090403@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5670C634.9090403@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:02:28AM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2015/12/15 21:42, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:39:19AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
> >>This patch introduce a new syntax to perf event parser:
> >>
> >>  # perf record -e './test_bpf_map_3.c/maps:channel.value[0,1,2,3...5]=101/' usleep 2
> >why 3 dots? I'd think the standard is 2 ?
> 
> The standard (actually it is a gcc extension, not C standard) is 3 dots.
> Please have a look at [1] and [2]. Although I also think '..' is better.
> 
> So after you seeing this, do you still think we should follow our
> intuition instead of following GCC? If you still prefer '..' I'll
> change it.

I'm ok with '...'

I think I only thought about '..' as a standard because of the way I use git log ;-)

thanks,
jirka

> 
> Thank you.
> 
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/23/4
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Case-Ranges.html
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> >just curious
> >   [0,1,2,3..5]
> >3 made me think there's something speecial about it ;-)
> >
> >
> >jirka
> 
>