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

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: <OSBPR01MB4600E5D5B5BF038D5A3F8544F78F9@OSBPR01MB4600.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 01:53:54 +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.
Do you have any advice?

Best Regards
Shunsuke