linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 03/18] perf/x86: add flags to event constraints

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, 18 Jan 2013 14:59:40 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	acme@...hat.com, jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung.kim@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/18] perf/x86: add flags to event constraints

> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -1367,8 +1367,10 @@ x86_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *event)
>  
>  	if (x86_pmu.event_constraints) {
>  		for_each_event_constraint(c, x86_pmu.event_constraints) {
> -			if ((event->hw.config & c->cmask) == c->code)
> +			if ((event->hw.config & c->cmask) == c->code) {
> +				event->hw.flags |= c->flags;
>  				return c;
> +			}

It's not fully clear where that hw.flags field gets initially zeroed. Is that implicit
in the allocation? Some comments would be good about its live cycle.

Or just use a = instead of |=? Why would you have multiple flags in different places?

-Andi
--
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/