[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130421171921.GA6645@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:19:21 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] perf, x86: AMD implementation for hardware
breakpoint address mask
Not a comment, but the question...
On 04/09, Jacob Shin wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ struct arch_hw_breakpoint {
> unsigned long address;
> u8 len;
> u8 type;
> + u32 mask;
> };
...
> @@ -254,6 +258,7 @@ static int arch_build_bp_info(struct perf_event *bp)
> struct arch_hw_breakpoint *info = counter_arch_bp(bp);
>
> info->address = bp->attr.bp_addr;
> + info->mask = bp->attr.bp_addr_mask;
OK, this matches the usage of info->address so I think this change
is right.
But otoh, why do we need info->address (or mask added by this patch)?
we could use bp->attr.bp_addr instead. arch_hw_breakpoint could have
a single filed = "type | len" for encode_dr7().
Yes, off-topic, sorry for noise.
Oleg.
--
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