Anshuman Khandual <khand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 02:29 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>
> >> Your description from patch 0 should be here.
> > Does it sound better ?
> >
> >>
> >>> - if ((br_privilege != 7) && (br_privilege != 0))
> >>> - return -1;
> >>> +
> >>> + if (br_privilege)
> >>> + pr_info("BHRB privilege state filter request %llx ignored\n",
> >>> + br_privilege);
> >>
> >> Don't do that. Ignoring the br_privilege is either the right thing to do
> >> in which case we do it and print nothing,
> >
> >
> > I thought the informational print would at least make the user aware
> > of the fact that the separate filter request for BHRB went ignored.
> > Can we add this some where in the documentation ?
>
> So, what we decide here ? We will just ignore any separate BHRB
> privilege state filter request without printing any informational
> event or warning ?
Printing it on the console is pointless. No one will read it.
If it's doing the filtering, then just drop the printk.
/* BHRB and regular PMU events share the same privilege state
* filter configuration. BHRB is always recorded along with a
* regular PMU event. As the privilege state filter is handled
* in the basic PMC configuration of the accompanying regular
* PMU event, we ignore any separate BHRB specific request.
*/
That updated comment I think make it clear.
So drop the printk and add the comment, and it's OK with me.
Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
