[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABPqkBT2RVHiebJF=b=bt95tGrEL-S0_h6yQOo+Ric368_1Kug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:27:51 -0800
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, acme@...hat.com,
ming.m.lin@...el.com, andi@...stfloor.org, robert.richter@....com,
ravitillo@....gov, will.deacon@....com, paulus@...ba.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, rth@...ddle.net, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
davem@...emloft.net, lethal@...ux-sh.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] perf_events: add generic taken branch sampling
support (v2)
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 14:37 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> +#define PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL \
>> + (PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER|\
>> + PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL)
>
> This PLM thing keeps popping up all over, I'm sure it stands for
> something, but for now it just hurts my eyes.
>
>
>> + /* at least one branch bit must be set */
>> + if (!(mask & ~PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_PLM_ALL))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>>
> Why? we can create counters with exclude_user && exclude_kernel as well,
> I mean, they're useless, but its perfectly valid.
I am fine with that change. I can drop this check.
--
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