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 S1755107AbcE3OYP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 10:24:15 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47110 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754888AbcE3OYO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 30 May 2016 10:24:14 -0400
Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 16:24:08 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Hekuang <hekuang@huawei.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, wangnan0@huawei.com,
        jpoimboe@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eranian@google.com,
        namhyung@kernel.org, adrian.hunter@intel.com,
        sukadev@linux.vnet.ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com,
        tumanova@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@intel.com, penberg@kernel.org,
        dsahern@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/11] perf callchain: Support x86 target platform
Message-ID: <20160530142408.GA20746@krava>
References: <1464436800-39860-1-git-send-email-hekuang@huawei.com>
 <1464436800-39860-11-git-send-email-hekuang@huawei.com>
 <20160530085317.GF25607@krava>
 <574C03C7.9030807@huawei.com>
 <20160530093034.GA9298@krava>
 <574C1CE0.1050309@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <574C1CE0.1050309@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Mon, 30 May 2016 14:24:13 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:58:40PM +0800, Hekuang wrote:

SNIP

> > I think it's ok to include arch/arm/....c
> > from arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> > 
> > jirka
> 
> By following your advise, if ARCH=x86, the file tree will
> be like this:
> 
> arch/x86
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> And for ARCH=arm （host machine is arm, it should be considered)
> arch/arm
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> For arm64:
> arch/arm64
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> But in my patch, the file tree is like this:
> 
> arch
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> I admit that
> 
> +libperf-$(CONFIG_LIBUNWIND_X86)      += x86/util/unwind-libunwind_x86_32.o
> 
> is not so good, but do you think the above file tree is
> too redunctant?

i see.. we could leave it like that, I just wish
it'd be more clear.. one last thought:

how about moving libunwind arch files into special folder:

  util/libunwind/arm64.c
  util/libunwind/x86_32.c
  util/libunwind/x86_64.c
  util/libunwind/arm.c

thanks,
jirka