On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:37:15PM -0500, Jacob Shin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 07:02:02PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 04/20, Jacob Shin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 06:53:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And does attr.bp_len "contribute" to the mask?
> > > >
> > > > I mean, if bp_len == X86_BREAKPOINT_LEN_8, does this mean that
> > > > bp_bp_addr_mask and (bp_bp_addr_mask | 7) have the same effect?
> > >
> > > Yes it has the same effect.
> >
> > OK, thanks...
> >
> > So this is the "natural" extension. Given that currently bp_addr
> > should be aligned, bp_len could be already bp_mask but I guess it
> > is too late to change this, so we need another field.
> >
> > Hmm. Perhaps arch_has_hw_breakpoint_addr_mask(void) should be turned
> > into arch_validate_hw_breakpoint_addr_mask(bp) which should also
> > check that (bp_addr & bp_addr_mask) == 0. But I won't insist.
>
> Yes I can do that .. in that case should the Kconfig
> CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT_ADDR_MASK go away, and in every non-x86
> hw_breakpoint.c do:
>
> bool arch_validate_hw_breakpoint_addr_mask(struct perf_event *bp)
> {
> return false;
Sorry, of course what I meant was,
return bp->attr.bp_addr_mask == 0;
> }
>
> ?
>
> Or keep CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT_ADDR_MASK and in
> include/linux/hw_breakpoint.h do:
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT_ADDR_MASK
> static inline bool arch_validate_hw_breakpoint_addr_mask(struct perf_event
> *bp)
> {
> return falase;
here too.
> }
> #endif
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
Just reading your other email, you said a __weak function would suffice.
So I'll do that .. sorry for answering my own question.
I'll send out a revised patchset sometime later tonight ..
Thanks again!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
