[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1434018301.1495.73.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:25:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: return ENOENT instead of ENOTSUPP
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:59 +0200, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
> The ENOTSUPP (which actually should be EOPNOTSUPP for user space) does not
> trigger a fallback event selection, for example, by perf record.
> If hardware support for the cycles perf event is available, but the hardware
> does not provide interrupts, returning ENOTSUPP causes perf to end. Returning
> ENOENT causes the perf tool to fallback to a software-based cycle PMU that
> supports interrupts.
>
> The commit 53b25335dd ("perf: Disable sampled events if no PMU interrupt")
> introduced that incompatible change.
That's 3.16
> if (event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT) {
> - err = -ENOTSUPP;
> + err = -ENOENT;
> goto err_alloc;
> }
> }
And now you would be changing an API that's been around for at least 4
releases.
Also, I really think -ENOENT is the wrong return here, you're asking for
things that's not supported, not for something that's not there.
--
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