linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hw_breakpoint: Remove unused '__register_perf_hw

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: <CACi5LpM9_O6gRgMgfAXrmZuaO111xJk3=xtjYXK5rKhTF7Znsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:49:27 +0530
From:   Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bhupesh SHARMA <bhupesh.linux@...il.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw_breakpoint: Remove unused '__register_perf_hw_breakpoint'
 declaration

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the review.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:37 PM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bhupesh,
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:22:17PM +0530, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
> > commit b326e9560a28 ("hw-breakpoints: Use overflow handler instead of
> > the event callback") removed '__register_perf_hw_breakpoint' function
> > usage and replaced it with 'register_perf_hw_breakpoint' function.
> >
> > Remove the left-over unused '__register_perf_hw_breakpoint' declaration
> > from 'hw_breakpoint.h' as well.
> >
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@...hat.com>
>
> This is generic code, so I'm a bit confused as to why you've sent it to
> us. I'd expect this to go via the perf core maintainers (cc'd).

Oops, my bad. Seems my git patch sending script messed up while
picking up the perf maintainers (who should have been Cc'ed on the
patch) :(

Thanks for adding them in the Cc list.

Hi Peter, Frederic, Ingo - Kindly help review this patch and help
apply the patch (if suitable).

Thanks,
Bhupesh

> FWIW, this looks sane to me, so:
>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>
> Mark.
>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h | 3 ---
> >  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h b/include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h
> > index 6058c3844a76..fe1302da8e0f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h
> > @@ -72,7 +72,6 @@ register_wide_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
> >                           void *context);
> >
> >  extern int register_perf_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp);
> > -extern int __register_perf_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp);
> >  extern void unregister_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp);
> >  extern void unregister_wide_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event * __percpu *cpu_events);
> >
> > @@ -115,8 +114,6 @@ register_wide_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
> >                           void *context)              { return NULL; }
> >  static inline int
> >  register_perf_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)   { return -ENOSYS; }
> > -static inline int
> > -__register_perf_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)         { return -ENOSYS; }
> >  static inline void unregister_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp)   { }
> >  static inline void
> >  unregister_wide_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event * __percpu *cpu_events)      { }
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
>