From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934633AbeEIJR2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 05:17:28 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.133]:40752 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934203AbeEIJR0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 May 2018 05:17:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 11:17:03 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , Jiri Olsa , Namhyung Kim , Linus Torvalds , Yoshinori Sato , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Catalin Marinas , Chris Zankel , Paul Mackerras , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Michael Ellerman , Rich Felker , Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland , Alexander Shishkin , Andy Lutomirski , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Max Filippov Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] perf/breakpoint: Split breakpoint "check" and "commit" Message-ID: <20180509091703.GH12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1525634395-23380-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> <1525634395-23380-9-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1525634395-23380-9-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > arch/arm/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > arch/arm64/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/arm64/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > arch/powerpc/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > arch/sh/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/sh/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- > arch/x86/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/x86/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 23 +++-------------------- > arch/xtensa/include/asm/hw_breakpoint.h | 5 ++++- > arch/xtensa/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 22 +++------------------- Because of those ^, > kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c | 11 ++++++----- would it not make sense to have a prelimenary patch doing something like: __weak int hw_breakpoint_arch_check(struct perf_event *bp) { return arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp); } __weak void hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(struct perf_event *bp) { } combined with this bit: > diff --git a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > index 6e28d28..6896ceeb 100644 > --- a/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > +++ b/kernel/events/hw_breakpoint.c > @@ -402,11 +402,12 @@ int dbg_release_bp_slot(struct perf_event *bp) > > static int validate_hw_breakpoint(struct perf_event *bp) > { > - int ret; > + int err; > > - ret = arch_validate_hwbkpt_settings(bp); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > + err = hw_breakpoint_arch_check(bp, &bp->attr); > + if (err) > + return err; > + hw_breakpoint_arch_commit(bp); > > if (arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace(bp)) { > if (bp->attr.exclude_kernel) And then convert the archs over one by one, and at the end remove the weak thingies entirely?