On Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:58:46 -0500 (EST), Vince Weaver wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >> Hi Vince, >> Okay, the reason I set the bit was consideration of a very strict >> perf_event_paranoid setting (-2). >> >> So maybe we can try it again with the bit cleared after a failure, or >> checking the paranoid setting first. > > If perf_event_paranoid is set to 2 then you should get EPERM rather than > ENOENT or EINVAL, right? Maybe that could be used too.
Ah, yes, it's 2. :) And it also can use the return value then. > > As a side note, why doesn't paranoid 2 block events that don't have > exclude_hv set? Hmm.. maybe because it predated the bit? Thanks, Namhyung -- 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/
