linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 0/4] perf vendor events: Support PMU events for A64FX

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Fri, 5 Feb 2021 12:09:30 +0000
From:   "nakamura.shun@...itsu.com" <nakamura.shun@...itsu.com>
To:     'John Garry' <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "mathieu.poirier@...aro.org" <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "leo.yan@...aro.org" <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/4] perf vendor events: Support PMU events for A64FX

Hi, John

> > Apart from that, I think that we're a bit uncertain about patch 3/4
> What are your concerns?
> I think it's okay for perf to read a new event code with a number at the beginning.

The impact of this fix is on {name} and later rules.
parse_events.l uses {name} only in one place.
The only rule defined after {name} is {name_tag}.

I think the point of current fix is that the rules defined after {name} are not misrecognize and the syntax is not broken. 
{name_tag} starts with ', but {name} does not contain'.
Therefore, the corrected {name} does not misrecognize the {name_tag}, and I think there is no problem.

Best Regards
Shunsuke

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel-bounces@...ts.infradead.org> On
> Behalf Of nakamura.shun@...itsu.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 4:02 PM
> To: 'John Garry' <john.garry@...wei.com>; will@...nel.org;
> mathieu.poirier@...aro.org; leo.yan@...aro.org; peterz@...radead.org;
> mingo@...hat.com; acme@...nel.org; mark.rutland@....com;
> alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com; jolsa@...hat.com; namhyung@...nel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 0/4] perf vendor events: Support PMU events for A64FX
> 
> Hi, John
> 
> > Just some things to note:
> > - please pick up and apply reviewed-by tags granted from previous
> > reviews if explicitly granted, subject to making any trivial changes
> > requested If any significant changes are made, then don't pick up
> > theses tags or drop them (if they were picked up earlier)
> I will fix.
> 
> > - I'd say that it's best not to send my patch in 1/4, but better to
> > mention the series which this is based on in your cover letter Sending
> > my patch is only going to make the maintainers (Arnaldo) life more difficult to
> track these things.
> I will fix.
> 
> > Apart from that, I think that we're a bit uncertain about patch 3/4
> What are your concerns?
> I think it's okay for perf to read a new event code with a number at the beginning.
> 
> Best Regards
> Shunsuke
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

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