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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 06:55:19 -0700 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com> Cc: acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Yao Jin <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] perf report: properly handle branch count in match_chain On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 12:59:14PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2017 00:41:04 CEST Andi Kleen wrote: > > Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com> writes: > > > +static enum match_result match_address_dso(struct dso *left_dso, u64 > > > left_ip, + struct dso *right_dso, u64 right_ip) > > > +{ > > > + if (left_dso == right_dso && left_ip == right_ip) > > > + return MATCH_EQ; > > > + else if (left_ip < right_ip) > > > + return MATCH_LT; > > > + else > > > + return MATCH_GT; > > > +} > > > > So why does only the first case check the dso? Does it not matter > > for the others? > > > > Either should be checked by none or by all. > > I don't see why it should be checked. It is only required to prevent two > addresses to be considered equal while they are not. So only the one check is > required, otherwise we return either LT or GT. When the comparison is always in the same process (which I think is not the case) just checking the addresses is sufficient. If they are not then you always need to check the DSO and only compare inside the same DSO. -Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists