From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753877AbcKIRjT (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:39:19 -0500
Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com ([209.85.216.179]:35017 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752546AbcKIRjS (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:39:18 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] arm64: hw_breakpoint: Handle inexact watchpoint
 addresses
To: Pavel Labath <labath@google.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
References: <cover.1476941895.git.panand@redhat.com>
 <22f4d20911e39efa0b8a6f7082d6839b80bb16b0.1476941895.git.panand@redhat.com>
 <20161108032941.GC20591@arm.com>
 <CAJt8pk9tH5nm5sUsKx-dAvW4uzKP+EoRumhYV1mXsU_mk6dRDg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>, onestero@redhat.com,
        Pavel Labath <test.tberghammer@gmail.com>
From: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <ffe812c9-0f2d-c791-8c93-2ad71849042e@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:09:10 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJt8pk9tH5nm5sUsKx-dAvW4uzKP+EoRumhYV1mXsU_mk6dRDg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org



On Tuesday 08 November 2016 05:28 PM, Pavel Labath wrote:
>>> +     if (min_dist > 0 && min_dist != -1) {
>>> >> +             /* No exact match found. */
>>> >> +             wp = slots[closest_match];
>>> >> +             info = counter_arch_bp(wp);
>>> >> +             info->trigger = addr;
>>> >> +             perf_bp_event(wp, regs);
>>> >> +     }
>> >
>> > Why don't we need to bother with the stepping in the case of a non-exact
>> > match?
> Good catch. I think we do. I must have dropped that part somehow.
>
> Pratyush, could you include the attached fixup in the next batch?

Ok, will do.

~Pratyush