linux-kernel - Re: perf: PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD on ARM vs everywhere else

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:	Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:00:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: perf: PERF_EVENT_IOC_PERIOD on ARM vs everywhere else

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:57:00AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Should other architectures be updated to?  I just wanted to find out the 
> > rationale for this before I update the manpage to reflect the difference 
> > in behaviors between architectures.
> 
> I don't want to be the `oddball' architecture (at least, not more than I am
> already :), but I do find it tricky to follow the required semantics of perf
> as opposed to `it happens to work this way', especially when so much of it
> is buried in the various arch backends. So if somebody using the thing on
> ARM has (what looks to me like) a valid issue, then I usually try and fix
> it.

Hurmph.. at least raise the issue for the other archs.
--
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/