linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 10/11] perf callchain: Support x86 target platform

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 30 May 2016 16:24:08 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Hekuang <hekuang@...wei.com>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
	alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, wangnan0@...wei.com,
	jpoimboe@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com,
	namhyung@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
	sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
	tumanova@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kan.liang@...el.com,
	penberg@...nel.org, dsahern@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/11] perf callchain: Support x86 target platform

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:58:40PM +0800, Hekuang wrote:

SNIP

> > I think it's ok to include arch/arm/....c
> > from arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> > 
> > jirka
> 
> By following your advise, if ARCH=x86, the file tree will
> be like this:
> 
> arch/x86
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> And for ARCH=arm （host machine is arm, it should be considered)
> arch/arm
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> For arm64:
> arch/arm64
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> But in my patch, the file tree is like this:
> 
> arch
> -    arch/arm64/util/unwind-libunwind-arm64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_64.c
> -    arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind-x86_32.c
> -    arch/arm/util/unwind-libunwind-arm.c
> 
> I admit that
> 
> +libperf-$(CONFIG_LIBUNWIND_X86)      += x86/util/unwind-libunwind_x86_32.o
> 
> is not so good, but do you think the above file tree is
> too redunctant?

i see.. we could leave it like that, I just wish
it'd be more clear.. one last thought:

how about moving libunwind arch files into special folder:

  util/libunwind/arm64.c
  util/libunwind/x86_32.c
  util/libunwind/x86_64.c
  util/libunwind/arm.c

thanks,
jirka