linux-kernel - Re: [RFT v3 1/4] perf cs-etm: Generate branch sample for missed packets

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

Message-ID: <20180530144922.GB12368@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date:   Wed, 30 May 2018 22:49:22 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Robert Walker <Robert.Walker@....com>,
        Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Tor Jeremiassen <tor@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFT v3 1/4] perf cs-etm: Generate branch sample for missed
 packets

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 08:45:46AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> On 29 May 2018 at 18:28, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Hi Mathieu,
> >
> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:04:49AM -0600, Mathieu Poirier wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> > As now this patch is big with more complex logic, so I consider to
> >> > split it into small patches:
> >> >
> >> > - Define CS_ETM_INVAL_ADDR;
> >> > - Fix for CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet;
> >> > - Fix for exception packet;
> >> >
> >> > Does this make sense for you?  I have concern that this patch is a
> >> > fixing patch, so not sure after spliting patches will introduce
> >> > trouble for applying them for other stable kernels ...
> >>
> >> Reverse the order:
> >>
> >> - Fix for CS_ETM_TRACE_ON packet;
> >> - Fix for exception packet;
> >> - Define CS_ETM_INVAL_ADDR;
> >>
> >> But you may not need to - see next comment.
> >
> > From the discussion context, I think here 'you may not need to' is
> > referring to my concern for applying patches on stable kernel, so I
> > should take this patch series as an enhancement and don't need to
> > consider much for stable kernel.
> 
> Yes, that is what I meant.

Thanks for confirmation, will send new patch series according to the
discussion.

[...]

Thanks,
Leo Yan