[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100408214241.GC7990@nowhere>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 23:42:43 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
davem@...emloft.net, robert.richter@....com,
perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix bogus warn_on(_once) in
perf_prepare_sample()
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:22:05PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:14:15PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 23:08 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you suggesting you add some padding the PEBS raw sample you
> >> >> return as PERF_SAMPLE_RAW? Then you need to define what RAW
> >> >> actually means? Seems here, it would mean more than what the
> >> >> HW returns.
> >> >
> >> > Well, RAW doesn't mean anything much at all, its really a fugly pass
> >> > some crap around thing.
> >> >
> >> > So yeah, adding padding seems just fine.
> >> >
> >> I would rather see size as u64. Who's using raw today anyway?
> >
> >
> > The trace events. Hence the size of the size shouldn't be touched, it
> > is an ABI now.
>
> Given your alignment constraints, it seems like it was a bad choice to pick
> u32 for size to begin with.
Indeed, I'm not exactly sure how this is dealt since this is indeed u32
and the buffer requires to align to u64...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists