linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] perf, persistent: Add persistent events

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20140506185050.GD25013@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2014 20:50:50 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/16] perf, persistent: Add persistent events

On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 02:39:07PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> Creation of events basically does (function arguments are a bit pseudo
> code):
> 
> 	attr.type   = pmu_type;
> 	attr.config = event_config;
> 	event = perf_event_open(attr, cpu, ...);
> 	id = ioctl(event, PERF_EVENT_IOC_UNCLAIM, 0);

Remind me again pls why we decided for the CLAIM/UNCLAIM part? It is
very unintuitive. What was against we detach from the event (we're
implicitly attached to it in the normal case, when it is not persistent)
and then reattach?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/