Re: [PATCH 4/6] perf_counter: Add PERF_COUNTER_IOC_SET_FILTER ioctl

From: Li Zefan
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 20:52:49 EST

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 18:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 16:13 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>>> Allow to set profile filter via ioctl.
>>> Hrm,.. not at all sure about this.. what are the ABI implications?
>> I think the ABI should be fine if it's always a sub-set of C syntax.
>> That would be C expressions initially. Hm?
> Right, so I've no clue what filter expressions look like, and the
> changelog doesn't help us at all. It doesn't mention its a well
> considered decision to henceforth freeze the expression syntax.
> Of course, since filters so far only work with tracepoint things, and
> since you can only come by tracepoint things through debugfs, and since
> anything debugfs is basically a free-for-all ABI-less world, we might be
> good, but then this is a very ill-defined ioctl() indeed.
> So please, consider this well -- there might not be a second chance.

Ok, the expressions are:

1. S = opr1 op opr2 (op: ==, !=, <, <=, >, >=.
opr1 should be a field in the format file)
2. E = S1 op S2 (op: ||, &&)
3. E = E1 op E2 (op: ||, &&)
4. () can be used

I don't the syntax will be changed, but we may extend it, like
adding not ! operator. Like, for a func ptr, besides "func==0xccee4400",
we may want to allow "func==foo". Those extentions are ok for the
ABI, right?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at