[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240722152756.59453-1-james.clark@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 16:27:55 +0100
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: coresight@...ts.linaro.org,
gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com,
mike.leach@...aro.org,
leo.yan@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com
Cc: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...ux.dev>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] perf cs-etm: Output 0 instead of 0xdeadbeef when exception packets are flushed
I noticed this when looking into Ganapat's fix to arm-cs-trace-disasm.py.
I assumed that seeing this in the output was a bug and went to
investigate why it happened in some cases and not others.
It turned out to not actually be a bug, but I think it doesn't look right.
In the end this change doesn't really accomplish anything and I'm not
sure if it's worth putting it in or not?
Maybe it will save someone doing the same thing as me, or maybe it will
actually break something if someones script is looking for 0xdeadbeef?
James Clark (1):
perf cs-etm: Output 0 instead of 0xdeadbeef when exception packets are
flushed
tools/perf/util/cs-etm.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists