[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87egetcbvs.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:12:39 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: zhang.chunyan@...aro.org, mike.leach@....com, tor@...com,
al.grant@....com, fainelli@...adcom.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 20/26] perf: changing pmu::setup_aux() parameter to include event
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org> writes:
> For Coresight ETMv3/4 tracers the event carries information
> about trace modes such as user or kernel space tracing and
> whether tracing is allowed when operating in secure mode.
Ok, so it looks to me that what you're doing in your setup_aux with the
event, you should rather be doing in pmu::event_init(), which takes
event as a parameter and it even makes more sense semantically, because
that bit is really configuring the parameters of tracing and not
capturing, which setup_aux() is more about. And the above paragraph also
sounds very much like it. Since in Coresight there is a very clear
distinction between trace generation (sources) and capturing (sinks) it
should also be possible to structure the code in such a way that the
former are not as closely tied to the latter. Please correct me if I'm
missing something.
Regards,
--
Alex
--
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