[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200916075154.GA13660@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:51:54 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] perf kvm: add kvm-stat for arm64
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 09:44:04AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/09/15 21:21), Leo Yan wrote:
> >
> > Sorry if I miss anything for this.
> >
>
> No, you are absolutely right! I should have looked more attentively.
>
> Is "IL" good enough for a decoded reason
>
> {ARM_EXCEPTION_IRQ, "IRQ" }, \
> {ARM_EXCEPTION_EL1_SERROR, "SERROR" }, \
> {ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP, "TRAP" }, \
> + {ARM_EXCEPTION_IL, "IL" }, \
> {ARM_EXCEPTION_HYP_GONE, "HYP_GONE" }
>
> or should there be "ILLEGAL", or maybe something even better?
> ILLEGAL_EXC, etc.
I personally think "ILLEGAL" is neat and clear :)
Thanks,
Leo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists