linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] perf tool: give user better message if precise is not supported

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:26:02 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] perf tool: give user better message if precise
 is not supported

On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 22:11 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>   return -EPERF_CPU_PRECISE_EV_NOTSUPP;

I just don't like having to enumerate all possible fails, I'm too lazy.
Can't we be smarter about that? Could we do a {reason}x{bit-offset} like
thing?

Where we limit reason to a few simple things like:

 invalid
 out-of-range
 not-supported

and have the bit-offset indicate the field we're having the particular
problem with?

Then all we need is a smart way to generate and map the bit-offsets
without too much manual labour. 
--
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/