[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bef7056-b862-3b20-c3b8-8b161511c60a@c-s.fr>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 08:33:33 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
mikey@...ling.org
Cc: apopple@...ux.ibm.com, paulus@...ba.org, npiggin@...il.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Disable all available
watchpoints when !dawr_force_enable
Le 01/04/2020 à 08:13, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
> Instead of disabling only first watchpoint, disable all available
> watchpoints while clearing dawr_force_enable.
Can you also explain why you change the function name ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> index 311e51ee09f4..5c882f07ac7d 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/dawr.c
> @@ -50,9 +50,13 @@ int set_dawr(struct arch_hw_breakpoint *brk, int nr)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void set_dawr_cb(void *info)
> +static void disable_dawrs(void *info)
Wouldn't it be better to keep _cb at the end of the function ?
> {
> - set_dawr(info, 0);
> + struct arch_hw_breakpoint null_brk = {0};
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_wp_slots(); i++)
> + set_dawr(&null_brk, i);
> }
>
> static ssize_t dawr_write_file_bool(struct file *file,
> @@ -74,7 +78,7 @@ static ssize_t dawr_write_file_bool(struct file *file,
>
> /* If we are clearing, make sure all CPUs have the DAWR cleared */
> if (!dawr_force_enable)
> - smp_call_function(set_dawr_cb, &null_brk, 0);
> + smp_call_function(disable_dawrs, NULL, 0);
>
> return rc;
> }
>
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists