[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZH40hgYbWc0x+1c3@tnovak-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 19:16:26 +0000
From: Tomislav Novak <tnovak@...a.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hw_breakpoint: fix single-stepping when using
bpf_overflow_handler
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 10:51:56AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 11:59:37AM +0000, Tomislav Novak wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing!
> >
> > Given the changes in the arch-independent perf_event.h, I think merging it
> > as a single commit may be easiest (assuming rmk acks it).
> >
> > Alternatively I could move arm changes into a separate patch, keeping arm64
> > and perf_event.h in this one (possibly splitting out the latter into its own
> > commit). One that's merged, the arm patch could be submitted to linux-arm.
> > What would you prefer?
>
> Actually, arch/arm*/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c come under the ARM PMU
> profiling, so no need to split the patch. It may need an ack from the
> generic perf maintainers for include/linux/perf.h.
>
> FWIW,
>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Sorry for the delay! I had forgotten about this patch until I stumbled
upon the same issue again recently with bpftrace.
I'll send a new version of the patch (with updated tags and retested on
on top of v6.4-rc5) in a bit. Think it could be merged via the arm64 tree
or would you recommend I submit it to rmk's patch tracker?
Thanks!
--
T.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists