[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f6a3ac3b-41c8-8a18-0f3d-ea4d4ef04db1@c-s.fr>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:44:11 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: apopple@...ux.ibm.com, mikey@...ling.org, peterz@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, npiggin@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
paulus@...ba.org, jolsa@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/16] powerpc/watchpoint: Provide DAWR number to
__set_breakpoint
Le 01/04/2020 à 11:11, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>
>
> Le 01/04/2020 à 10:57, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 4/1/20 12:33 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 01/04/2020 à 08:12, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>>>> Introduce new parameter 'nr' to __set_breakpoint() which indicates
>>>> which DAWR should be programed. Also convert current_brk variable
>>>> to an array.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/debug.h | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 8 ++++----
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>>> arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c | 2 +-
>>>> arch/powerpc/xmon/xmon.c | 2 +-
>>>> 6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/debug.h
>>>> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/debug.h
>>>> index 7756026b95ca..6228935a8b64 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/debug.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/debug.h
>>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static inline int debugger_break_match(struct
>>>> pt_regs *regs) { return 0; }
>>>> static inline int debugger_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) {
>>>> return 0; }
>>>> #endif
>>>> -void __set_breakpoint(struct arch_hw_breakpoint *brk);
>>>> +void __set_breakpoint(struct arch_hw_breakpoint *brk, int nr);
>>>
>>> Same, I think it would make more sense to have nr as first argument.
>>
>> Sorry, didn't get your point. How will that help?
>>
>
> Well, it is a tiny detail but for me it is more natural to first tel
> which element you modify before telling how you modify it.
>
And the second advantage is that when you have a function
get_something() paired with you set_something(), you can then have it as
first argument in both functions.
void set_something(int nr, type something)
type get_something(int nr)
But again, that's detail, so up to you.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists