On 08/06, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > Afaics you do not need to clear attr.disabled, > > modify_user_hw_breakpoint_check() > > updates it if err = 0. So I think > > > > if (!bp->attr.disabled) > > perf_event_enable(bp); > > > > will look a bit better. > > > > > > But, with or without this fix, shouldn't we set .disabled = 1 if modify_() > > fails? > > IIUC this doesn't matter, bp->attr.disabled is not really used anyway, but > > looks a > > bit confusing. > > > > yea, I was looking on that, but as u said it makes no difference > and I wanted to keep the patch as simple as possible ;-)
OK. So both patches look good to me. Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>
