From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757565Ab1GDNcc (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:32:32 -0400 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:48488 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753265Ab1GDNcb (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jul 2011 09:32:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:02:23 +0530 From: "K.Prasad" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: LKML , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] hw_breakpoints: Breakpoints arch ability don't need perf events Message-ID: <20110704133223.GB2963@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1306273947-8410-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1306273947-8410-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1306273947-8410-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > The breakpoint support ability in an arch is not related > to the fact perf events is built or not. HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > only shows an ability so this dependency makes no sense > anymore. Archs that select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT already > ensure that perf event is built. > > Remove that dependency. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > Cc: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > Cc: Will Deacon > Cc: Prasad > Cc: Paul Mundt > --- > arch/Kconfig | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > index f78c2be..ce4be89 100644 > --- a/arch/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/Kconfig > @@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ config HAVE_DEFAULT_NO_SPIN_MUTEXES > > config HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > bool > - depends on PERF_EVENTS > > config HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS > bool > -- Just a thought you might want to consider... The need to keep the ability (HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT) and the user-choice to enable hardware breakpoints (through HW_BREAKPOINT) in separate config options isn't very clear to me (and is a bit confusing with very similar names). Why not make HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT selectable by the user (which in turn would turn on PERF_EVENTS) for a given architecture? Thanks, K.Prasad From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp01.au.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 588DDB6F71 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:32:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (d23relay04.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.246]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p64DS6CV001225 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:28:06 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p64DVC65864352 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:31:12 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p64DWRME016048 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 23:32:28 +1000 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 19:02:23 +0530 From: "K.Prasad" To: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] hw_breakpoints: Breakpoints arch ability don't need perf events Message-ID: <20110704133223.GB2963@in.ibm.com> References: <1306273947-8410-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1306273947-8410-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1306273947-8410-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , LKML , Paul Mundt , Ingo Molnar , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Reply-To: prasad@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > The breakpoint support ability in an arch is not related > to the fact perf events is built or not. HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > only shows an ability so this dependency makes no sense > anymore. Archs that select HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT already > ensure that perf event is built. > > Remove that dependency. > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > Cc: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Peter Zijlstra > Cc: Will Deacon > Cc: Prasad > Cc: Paul Mundt > --- > arch/Kconfig | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > index f78c2be..ce4be89 100644 > --- a/arch/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/Kconfig > @@ -149,7 +149,6 @@ config HAVE_DEFAULT_NO_SPIN_MUTEXES > > config HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT > bool > - depends on PERF_EVENTS > > config HAVE_MIXED_BREAKPOINTS_REGS > bool > -- Just a thought you might want to consider... The need to keep the ability (HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT) and the user-choice to enable hardware breakpoints (through HW_BREAKPOINT) in separate config options isn't very clear to me (and is a bit confusing with very similar names). Why not make HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT selectable by the user (which in turn would turn on PERF_EVENTS) for a given architecture? Thanks, K.Prasad