From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752549AbdKHPC0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:02:26 -0500 Received: from mail-ot0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]:47664 "EHLO mail-ot0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751705AbdKHPCY (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:02:24 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMbTm6XBQJMOsj/12c21zqqD1OPEASD5gGl5Bxg+KQrO5Adxf81U1t2ekspOnJqnhpx5sIUQyWIOMKhJG4pHrwc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171108141522.GA6320@krava> References: <20171106092305.GA16382@krava> <20171108141522.GA6320@krava> From: Milind Chabbi Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:02:22 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LfoY0QFyyjSCYt5eUXjQgkZN5UI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/core: fast breakpoint modification via _IOC_MODIFY_BREAKPOINT To: Jiri Olsa Cc: Milind Chabbi , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Alexander Shishkin , Namhyung Kim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk-manpages , linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman , Andi Kleen , Kan Liang , Hari Bathini , Sukadev Bhattiprolu , Jin Yao Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:04:40AM -0800, Milind Chabbi wrote: >> Hi Jirka, >> >> I see the tabs in my sent email, do you have suggestions on how best to >> send this patch so that the tabs are preserved by the email client? >> Can anybody else also check if they received with/without tabs? >> >> release_bp_slot/reserve_bp_slot majic is not necessary since >> _IOC_MODIFY_BREAKPOINT ioctl modifies an already registered breakpoint >> without affecting the count of breakpoints active. > > but AFAICS you allow to change the breakpoint type (bp_type) > and slot counts are based on the breakpoint type > > jirka Jirka, I am not able to fully understand your concern. Can you point to a code file and line related to your observation? The patch is modeled after the existing modify_user_hw_breakpoint() function present in events/hw_breakpoint.c; don't you see this problem in that code? -Milind