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 S1752033AbcFWRiv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:38:51 -0400
Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:34454 "EHLO
	mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751628AbcFWRiu convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:38:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28A97E4D-3B8D-4151-8F94-627629E89263@163.com>
References: <1466659667-99144-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>
 <1466659667-99144-8-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com> <CACbG30-YC1AN43mtkZbuyAq0YiE9YBknbhXRrYO7TYn3SoQFPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <28A97E4D-3B8D-4151-8F94-627629E89263@163.com>
From: Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:38:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CACbG30-rs_v8H0v6nL3xELpufFLWxAL_SavUyo8HD+iKWVhEAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 07/10] perf record: Read from overwritable ring buffer
To: pi3orama <pi3orama@163.com>
Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, acme@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        He Kuang <hekuang@huawei.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 23 June 2016 at 09:31, pi3orama <pi3orama@163.com> wrote:
>
>
> 发自我的 iPhone
>
>> 在 2016年6月23日，下午10:27，Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com> 写道：
>>
>>> On 23 June 2016 at 00:27, Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> @@ -542,6 +568,79 @@ static struct perf_event_header finished_round_event = {
>>>        .type = PERF_RECORD_FINISHED_ROUND,
>>> };
>>>
>>> +static void
>>> +record__toggle_overwrite_evsels(struct record *rec,
>>> +                               enum overwrite_evt_state state)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct perf_evlist *evlist = rec->overwrite_evlist;
>>> +       enum overwrite_evt_state old_state = rec->overwrite_evt_state;
>>> +       enum action {
>>> +               NONE,
>>> +               PAUSE,
>>> +               RESUME,
>>> +       } action = NONE;
>>> +
>>> +       switch (old_state) {
>>> +       case OVERWRITE_EVT_RUNNING: {
>>> +               switch (state) {
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_DATA_PENDING:
>>> +                       action = PAUSE;
>>> +                       break;
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_RUNNING:
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_EMPTY:
>>> +               default:
>>> +                       goto state_err;
>>> +               }
>>> +               break;
>>> +       }
>>> +       case OVERWRITE_EVT_DATA_PENDING: {
>>> +               switch (state) {
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_EMPTY:
>>> +                       break;
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_RUNNING:
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_DATA_PENDING:
>>> +               default:
>>> +                       goto state_err;
>>> +               }
>>> +               break;
>>> +       }
>>> +       case OVERWRITE_EVT_EMPTY: {
>>> +               switch (state) {
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_RUNNING:
>>> +                       action = RESUME;
>>> +                       break;
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_EMPTY:
>>> +               case OVERWRITE_EVT_DATA_PENDING:
>>> +               default:
>>> +                       goto state_err;
>>
>>
>> Wang, thanks for making the changes I suggested.
>> The patch overall looks fine to me.  Just as a matter
>> of style, I probably would not write case labels that
>> do not have any statements associated with them.
>> I'll let default take care of those labels.
>>
>
> I don't like them either.
>
> You have to do this when you start working
> on perf code. It turns on -Wall and -Werror,
> without these case gcc will complain,
> compiling will fail.
>

Oops!  Did not realize that compiler would complain.
I guess we have to leave them as they are.  Patch is good to be committed.

Thanks
Nilay